Business of the House

Debate between Peter Bone and Chris Bryant

Thursday 10th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I hate to think what is happening in Ukraine today. It is almost unbelievable, but it has achieved one thing: in all my time here, I have never seen the House more united or better informed. That is partly due to Mr Speaker granting urgent questions and the address by the President of Ukraine, but it is also due the way in which those on the Opposition Benches have performed, and of course the leadership from the Prime Minister on this has been superb. May I also thank the Leader of the House? I cannot remember a time when Ministers have come to this House so regularly to update it and to answer the questions that they have been asked—

[Chris Bryant]

What?

[Mr Bone]

They have answered the questions they have been asked. I just want to ask one other thing. If something dreadful happens in the next few days before Parliament comes back on Monday, would the Leader of the House be willing to recommend recalling Parliament?

Code of Conduct: Consultation

Debate between Peter Bone and Chris Bryant

Thursday 2nd December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I have to say that I disagree with the last remark of the Chair of the Committee, because it is clearly a House matter, so it would be better coming from the Backbench Business Committee.

I certainly welcome the proposal that the advice given is firm advice, even if the advice is wrong and is acted on. That would be a sensible safeguard.

The one area about which I am concerned is the right of appeal. I think there should be an independent right of appeal at the end of the process. In 95% or 98% of referrals, when the Committee makes its decision, the Member accepts it and we move forward, but on the rare occasions when the Member feels badly done by, there should be, as in other organisations, a right of appeal to a completely independent organisation. I wonder whether the Chair of the Committee would take that view on board in the consultation, because it is probably the only bit that I disagree with.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for agreeing with nearly all of it. Personally, and I think this is true for the rest of the Committee, I do not have a final fixed view on how we should implement appeals. The issue will arise, however, that one of the available sanctions is suspension from the House—or expulsion, for that matter—and historically, it has been the House’s view that that has to be a decision of the House rather than of any separate body. That is why, even in ICGS cases on sexual harassment and bullying, where there is an appeals process and the whole process goes through an independent expert panel, the final decision is none the less taken in the House. The hon. Gentleman knows—I think he voted for my amendment—that the motion comes straight from the IEP to the House and is voted through without amendment or debate. That is my only caveat to what he has said about appeals.

Health and Social Care (National Data Guardian) Bill

Debate between Peter Bone and Chris Bryant

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 6th June 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Bone]

The problem is that we could easily say that we need to have a regulator, but that is not what the Data Guardian does. We do not want to come along afterwards and say what has gone wrong; we want to get this right at the beginning and work with the different holders of data. It is a different approach. The comparison I think of is when I was involved with combating modern-day slavery. We now have a commissioner for that whose job is not to regulate but to expose and say what is going well or badly, and that helps. There could be pressure on an organisation—for instance, if it gets really bad publicity it will do something about it, but equally the commissioner will show where things are going well. We do not want to move towards a regulator or have lots of enforcement powers because that is totally different to what we have already established with Dame Fiona. Each hospital has a Caldicott guardian in it, so we are basically putting something that works on a statutory footing for the future.

I am pleased by the conversion of the hon. Member for Rhondda to concerns about cost, and I shall remind him of that if there is ever a Labour Government in future—

[Chris Bryant]

When!

[Mr Bone]

Well, I am sure there will be a Labour Government sometime in the next century.

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point about MPs and data provided by our constituents. Although I do not think it is particularly relevant to this, I do think all Members are wrestling with what the new regulations mean. Medical practitioners have to hold information for a very long time. I have very detailed medical information from some of my constituents, and serious issues might arise if we were forced to destroy such information. Perhaps the National Data Guardian could give some advice on that point. I get very frustrated when I have to deal with the local hospital, if I do not get a consent form. That is clearly a delaying factor and definitely needs to be cleared up.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 2

Interpretation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

The clause introduces amendments to other legislation as a consequence of the Bill. Schedule 2 lists five Acts to be altered, following parliamentary counsel’s advice. Those are the Public Records Act 1958, the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Equality Act 2010.

[Chris Bryant]

Why is the hon. Gentleman so keen on disqualifying a Member of the House of Commons from being the Data Guardian?

[Mr Bone]

We have taken parliamentary counsel’s advice—as always, I take advice from people. That is the reason: it is as a consequence of advice given by parliamentary counsel, and I am happy to accept that, unless the hon. Gentleman is thinking of himself in that role.

[Mr Bone]

The clause sets out the Bill’s territorial extent. The Bill extends to England and Wales only. The Committee will note that clause 1 provides for the Data Guardian to publish guidance and give advice, information and assistance, but that applies only to the processing of health and social care data in England. However, in regard to application, the provisions extend to England and Wales but apply only to England. The provisions do not extend or apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland. I hope that is perfectly clear.

[Chris Bryant]

Well no, it is not really. In fact, it is a little bit worse than that. We return to clause 2(5), which says:

“‘The health service’ means the health service continued under section 1(1) of the National Health Service Act 2006”,

but that Act states:

“The Secretary of State must continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service”

and so on. I therefore do not understand why the Bill extends to England and Wales. Will the provision will have any relevance whatever in Wales? If not, I do not know why it says that it does.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Peter Bone and Chris Bryant

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 11th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is a great honour to follow the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett). She made a very thoughtful speech. One point on which I entirely agree is that, as this Bill passes through the House, we can look at better ways to scrutinise secondary legislation in particular. It seems that the Government are right that they will have to use secondary legislation, but it does not mean that all Delegated Legislation Committees must look the same. We do not have to have a one-and-a-half-hour DL on a technical matter of no importance whatsoever. However, if there is a Committee of some importance, why not extend the hours? Any Member can speak in a DL Committee, so there are ways we can improve scrutiny. That is what the Committee of the whole House should do when it considers the Bill.

I would be very surprised if the Bill finishes up in exactly the same format at the end as at the start. The Government would be well advised to accept reasonable amendments that improve the situation, but the principle of this Bill is quite simple.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On delegated legislation, the hon. Gentleman seems to think that it is okay if something is debated in Committee, but the truth of the matter is that the only motion that can be considered in a delegated legislation Committee is whether the Committee has or has not considered the matter in hand. In other words, if every member of the Committee voted against, the legislation would none the less come into law. That is the danger of relying on secondary legislation.

[Mr Bone]

I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that if the affirmative mechanism were used, the whole House would vote on the matter, so I do not accept his argument.

This Bill is about a principle: I think it is called the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, and I think I introduced—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

I thought that was the point I made: that this House could ultimately reject a DL. That is clearly what happened: we vote on it. I remember, and we vote on them all the time—my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) mentioned at least eight times that they had been annulled.

[Chris Bryant]

Under the negative procedure, which is referred to regularly in the Bill, it is entirely up to the Government whether to allow a debate and a vote at all, and in the last 12 instances where the House has demanded a debate and a vote, including on very important issues, they have granted them on only four occasions.

[Mr Bone]

I entirely accept that point about the negative procedure. I want to move on to—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

No!

Basically, this Bill is about the principle of ending EU control over this House and incorporating those laws. That is fine, and that is why every Member of the House should vote for it tonight. What they should then do is look in Committee, clause by clause, at how we are proposing to scrutinise, change and incorporate laws. I wholly accept that the negative SI procedure is probably not the best way of proceeding.

Another thing that has been mentioned—the right hon. Member for Derby South brought it up, and it is probably what I wanted to talk about most—is programme motions. As a principle, I am against programme motions. I accept entirely the answer she gave me, which is that it was a lot worse before. However, she did not go on to say that it is great now, and I do not think it has been. There have been a lot of problems with the Government deciding programming and the timing of scrutiny.

Now, this particular programme motion is one of the better ones, because the debate is eight days long, with eight hours’ protected time each day. I am fed up of sitting here waiting for a debate, only to find that there is statement after statement, which reduces the time we have for that debate. Thankfully, we are not doing that this time, and if there is a need for extra time, the Leader of the House would be well advised to grant it.

I was here at business questions on Thursday, and the shadow Leader of the House did not complain about the timetabling. [Interruption.] Well, I must have been deaf, because I was listening out for it. She moaned about a lot of things, but she did not complain about the length of time.

[Chris Bryant]

She did.

[Mr Bone]

Well, I will stand corrected if that is the case.

Anyway, the point I wanted to make is that it should not be up to the Government to timetable business in this House. By fortune, I have a ten-minute rule Bill tomorrow that introduces a business of the House commission. If that Bill was law, we would not be worrying about all of this now, because timetabling would be decided by the House, with a commission putting its recommendations to the House once a week to vote on. So we are having a row about something when we do not need to.

If only we had listened to David Cameron, the former Prime Minister, when he said in his “Fixing Broken Politics” speech—one of his best speeches ever—that we should have this House commission. It was, of course, also in the coalition Bible, and we guaranteed that we would have that House commission within three years of the coalition’s coming into power. I do not know why that did not happen; I assume it just got overlooked. It would be quite wrong of me to say that the two Whips Offices were absolutely opposed to losing their power—it could not possibly have been that.

All that I am doing tomorrow is, hopefully, reintroducing something that was the policy of the former Prime Minister, the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats and the Wright reforms. If we had had that commission, all the arguments and worries on the Opposition side would have disappeared.

Points of Order

Debate between Peter Bone and Chris Bryant

Thursday 24th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. We all like the Leader of the House and we take him at his word. Only a few weeks ago, he told the House that if not enough Members turn up to vote for a private Member’s Bill—this was in relation to the Alan Turing Bill—it should fall, and that was fair enough. We all turned up last week: large numbers of us took him at his word and the vote was carried by 257 votes—including several Conservative Members—to 35. Surely, by the Leader of the House’s own logic, the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill should now go into Committee. Plenty of Members turned up to vote for it, and those who did not might be those who do not want it.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

rose—

Wilson Doctrine

Debate between Peter Bone and Chris Bryant

Monday 19th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the operation of the Wilson Doctrine.

Let me start by paying tribute to all those who have kept up sustained questioning on this topic: my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and, most importantly, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), whose court case has brought so much new information to light. They have done the whole House and the country an invaluable service.

Until last Wednesday, it was thought that the Wilson doctrine was still in force. MPs and Members of the Lords—[Interruption.] I hear the Home Secretary saying that the doctrine is still in force. Well, we look forward to hearing her argument on that later on.

MPs and Members of the Lords, as well as those who communicated with them as whistleblowers, constituents and members of the wider public, thought that parliamentarians’ communications were not, would not and could not be tampered with or intercepted, and that they could rely on a guarantee from the Government that that was so. That is because the doctrine was originally laid out in unambiguous terms on 17 November 1966 when Harold Wilson, the then Prime Minister, told the House that there was to be

“no tapping of the telephones of hon. Members.”—[Official Report, 17 November 1966; Vol. 736, c. 634.]

That was our decision and that was our policy. Five days later, the Lord Privy Seal, Lord Longford, announced that the policy also applied to their lordships’ House.

Despite changes of Government and advances in technology, the policy has enjoyed remarkably consistent declarations of support from Harold Wilson’s successors. It was reasserted by Mrs Thatcher, who said in a written answer on 6 February 1980 that

“the policy remains as stated by the right hon. Gentleman.”—[Official Report, 6 February 1980; Vol. 978, c. 245W.]

The right hon. Gentleman to whom she referred was Harold Wilson.

The policy was reasserted by Tony Blair in the same terms on 30 October 1997. On 4 December that year, he said that the policy

“applies in relation to telephone interception and to the use of electronic surveillance by any of the three security and intelligence agencies.”—[Official Report, 4 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 321.]

On 21 January 2002, he clarified:

“The policy extends to all forms of warranted interception of communications.”—[Official Report, 21 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 589W.]

Like Wilson, Blair made it clear that he was acting on consideration. When Sir Swinton Thomas, the then interception of communications commissioner, advised him against maintaining the Wilson doctrine in 2006, Mr Blair told the House in a written ministerial statement, after consultation in Cabinet:

“I have considered Sir Swinton’s advice very seriously…I have decided that the Wilson Doctrine should be maintained.”—[Official Report, 30 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 96WS.]

The doctrine was also reasserted by Gordon Brown on 12 September 2007. As late as 15 July 2014, the Home Secretary stated that

“obviously the Wilson doctrine applies to parliamentarians”,

as if nothing had changed—exactly as she has done just now.

I give this history merely to point to the absolute nature of the Wilson doctrine, the categorical nature in which it has been stated to this House, and the consistency with which it has been supported, at least in public, by successive Governments, despite changing security threats and changing technology. Even after the introduction of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, Governments repeatedly made it clear that the Wilson doctrine remained in place—until last Wednesday, when the Investigatory Powers Tribunal revealed that a completely different regime is now in operation under this Home Secretary. From the evidence given to the tribunal, it is clear that the Wilson doctrine has been altered beyond recognition without Parliament being told and that the Wilson doctrine is, to all intents and purposes, defunct.

Harold Wilson joked that his postbag suggested that

“a very high proportion of the electorate generally are under the delusion that their telephones are being tapped. This delusion spreads to hon. Members and I should say that I used to suffer from it myself at one time.”—[Official Report, 17 November 1966; Vol. 736, c. 636.]

He, of course, was joking, but as one who knows for certain that his phone was tapped by The News of the World, I say to the Government, “Do not take us for fools. We in this House are not naive. Be open and honest with the House and with the public.”

Last year, the former police officer Peter Francis said that he had seen old security files on Jack Straw, Peter Hain, Joan Ruddock, Ken Livingstone and my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) and for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). The Government tried to silence Peter Francis then, but it now seems that his revelations were probably just the tip of the iceberg.

Most worryingly, last week’s IPT ruling included the partial disclosure of the Government’s official guidance to the three security agencies, which includes a lengthy piece on the Wilson doctrine. The official guidance states categorically: first, that

“it is not, and has never been, Government policy that Parliamentarians’ communications may not be the subject of interception”;

secondly, that the Wilson doctrine does not apply to requests for communications data relating to parliamentarians, nor to the communications of a Member of the European Parliament or of a devolved Administration; thirdly, that parliamentarians are not exempt from bulk interceptions of communications under section 8(4) of RIPA and that any such material that relates to parliamentarians can be interrogated within MI5 and can be disclosed to an outside body; fourthly, that the Wilson doctrine protects only

“the communications of Parliamentarians in the performance of their Parliamentary and constituency duties without fear that their communications are being targeted other than exceptionally where there is a compelling reason for doing so”;

and, fifthly, that the Home Secretary can, having consulted the agencies and the Prime Minister, via the Cabinet Secretary, issue a warrant for the deliberate targeting and interception of parliamentarians’ communications.

That blatantly flies in the face of successive Prime Ministers’ statements to this House. Why would the Government need a separate warrant process for the interception of MPs’ communications if they were still abiding by the Wilson doctrine that MPs’ communications should not, could not and would not be intercepted? How can it be right that the process depends on three highly subjective judgments: first, about what constitute parliamentary and constituency duties, which is a notoriously difficult matter in determining parliamentary privilege; secondly, about what constitutes a sufficiently significant exception; and, thirdly, about what would count as a sufficiently compelling reason? How can it be right that under the Home Secretary’s new dispensation all those judgments are made solely by the Home Secretary, with one politician deciding on the targeting of another politician?

One other element of the Wilson doctrine was that the Prime Minister, “on his own initiative”—those were the then Prime Minister’s words—would notify Parliament of any change to the doctrine. No such statement has been volunteered by this Prime Minister, yet the tribunal makes it very clear that the doctrine has been changed. It states that

“changes in the Doctrine…have resulted in its operation as now described by Mrs May”.

Those words are “changes in the doctrine”. It adds:

“It is clear to us that the Wilson Doctrine as now constituted is as explained by Mrs May”

and goes on to point out that the Wilson doctrine is not in operation.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for his explanation. We hear about changes, but could those changes have been made a very long time ago and not just by this Government?

[Chris Bryant]

Of course, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is perfectly possible that changes have been made previously, but we cannot judge that. All we can judge is the decision of the IPT, which has been able to review substantially more evidence than this House would ever be able to review and concluded that “changes in the Doctrine” have resulted in its operation as it is now. I suspect that it would be impossible for us ever to know whether changes were made prior to this Government taking office, but we certainly know that the doctrine as previously espoused by every Prime Minister since Wilson is not that which is in operation under the present Home Secretary. In other words, the Wilson doctrine has no legal effect. It is no longer in force. It is no more than a self-denying ordinance that could easily be rescinded and has already been ignored, all without notifying Parliament.

It is clear that the situation is unsatisfactory and I believe that it is time that the Government were straight with the House, so let me ask the Home Secretary some simple questions. What did she mean when she said that the Wilson doctrine “obviously” applies to parliamentarians? Will she now finally admit that the Wilson doctrine is no longer? Will she tell us when she resolved to change the Wilson doctrine? Was there any discussion of these changes at Cabinet, as notified in the IPT judgment? Will she tell us how often warrants have been issued for the targeted interception of parliamentarians’ communications? Has she issued such warrants herself, and did she have any direct correspondence with the Prime Minister about this?

Let me be clear that I am not calling for individual warrants or interceptions to be identified. It is a long-standing policy of both parties of government that we will not comment on individual applications for interception. Indeed, it is an offence under RIPA to reveal that information. Neither do we want the operational security of ongoing investigations to be undermined, but we need to know the truth about whether parliamentarians have been spied on, and on what authority that happened.

Let me end by laying out the parameters for a possible new Wilson doctrine. First, there may be situations when it is necessary for a parliamentarian’s communications to be intercepted in the interests of securing the nation and preventing serious criminality. MPs cannot ever be above the law, but our democracy cannot function properly without the freedom of MPs to communicate with their constituents, whistleblowers, or the wider public without fear of interception. Just as, in the interests of a free press and a sound justice system, journalists and lawyers are granted enhanced protection from warranted surveillance, the legal presumption should be that parliamentarians are not to be targeted, nor their metadata interrogated, without good cause. That means that, as the Anderson report of the investigatory powers review, “A Question of Trust”, concluded, a judge, not a politician, should make the decision on a warrant. It means that the bar for granting a warrant should be high. Agencies should be required to show due cause and specific suspicion of serious criminality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, but that was why I was limiting my questions to telephone conversations, which the Home Secretary would have known about and clearly does know about, but which she does not want to tell the House about.

[Chris Bryant]

For the avoidance of doubt, I want to make it absolutely clear that my personal objection is not that MPs’ phones might have been tapped—there might be circumstances in which that is perfectly legitimate in order for Governments to defend national security or prevent serious criminality—but the continued pretence and repeated assertion that their phones have not been tapped.

[Mr Bone]

I almost agree with the shadow Leader of the House. What I am saying is that I have no objection to the tapping of MPs’ telephones for national security, alongside all the safeguards we have mentioned, but we should be told at least once a year how many times that has occurred. We should know not who is involved, but how often it has occurred so that the House knows what is going on. That, however, is the information that we cannot get, which is why we have to put the Wilson doctrine into law. It expands, of course, into e-mails and all the other forms of communication that are now in place.

Let us have the debate. The shadow Leader of the House seemed to take an assurance from the Home Secretary, but I was not sure whether I was listening to Richard Nixon again. It was not clear to me whether legislation will definitely be brought forward, or if that would be only considered. It is essential that we get clarity about that.

I was very attracted to what my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) said when he talked about a treble lock. If an MP’s phone is to be tapped or another form of their communication is to be intercepted, yes, that should be authorised by the Home Secretary and by a judge, but I think it should also be authorised by whoever is sitting in your Chair, Mr Speaker, as the Speaker should also have a role in this. That triple lock would make the process more difficult because if any of those parties disagreed, the proposed intervention would not happen. We need to debate such issues in detail. We cannot pretend that MPs are not having their communications intercepted when clearly, by the omission of a response from the Government, that is exactly what is happening.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bone and Chris Bryant

Thursday 4th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

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

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

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Does he get a hug?

[Chris Bryant]

No, he does not get a hug. If he really wants one, he can ask for one later, and so can the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone).

Royal Charter on Press Conduct

Debate between Peter Bone and Chris Bryant

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Sorry, we have to rename all of these things. It is great to be heckled by the leader of my own party.

Article 9 of the charter specifies that the charter cannot be changed except by a two-thirds majority. Incidentally, the answer to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) is that the two thirds applies not to all Members of the House, but just to those who vote. The most important thing is that that provision in article 9 has to be put into statute. That is the statutory underpinning that protects the charter, the House and everybody else from Ministers.

[Mr Bone]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bone and Chris Bryant

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we must tread with extreme caution in trying to tell the Church of England how to run its own affairs? It is nearly 100 years since this Parliament has interfered with the Church’s affairs—

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Rubbish! Nonsense!

[Mr Bone]

Although Members are entitled to hold very strong opinions, would my hon. Friend reflect that it is really up to the Church of England to sort this out?

Multiannual Financial Framework

Debate between Peter Bone and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

I agree entirely.

The issue tonight is not whether I am happy to vote with the hon. Member for Rhondda—

[Chris Bryant]

You always are.

[Mr Bone]

There are no two people in the House who disagree more on the European Union than the hon. Gentleman and I. Today, however, we are voting for what the British people want. When I talk to people in Rushden or Wellingborough, they cannot understand why their council services are being cut at the same time as we plan to spend billions more on the European Union.

Cutting away the rest of the rhetoric, hon. Members must decide whether they will vote for a Conservative amendment calling for a real reduction in the budget, or a coalition motion that effectively calls for an increase, because it allows for inflation. I am sure that, secretly, the Prime Minister would like the whole House to vote for the Conservative amendment, because it would strengthen his hand in the negotiations enormously if he could say, “There is a united House of Commons demanding a reduction in the budget.”

Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and Governance

Debate between Peter Bone and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Of course, what you say is absolutely true, but you would not have granted this debate unless 100 Members had stood up. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) is absolutely right to say that a lot of Tory Back Benchers have been dying for anything other than the complete vacuum—

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

What rubbish!

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman said so last night to me in the gym. They are dying for anything other than the absolute vacuum that there has been in the business in this, the longest parliamentary Session since the Long Parliament.

Eurozone Crisis

Debate between Peter Bone and Chris Bryant

Thursday 27th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The Chancellor is absolutely right to say that a disorderly break-up of the euro would be a disaster, but given that the euro is going to break up, should we not take the advice of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and organise an orderly break up of the euro?

[Chris Bryant]

That was not my advice.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Peter Bone and Chris Bryant

Thursday 8th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

The shadow Minister of course makes a fair point, but to balance it we have to give credit to the Government for introducing fixed one-year Sessions in future. There is another side to this, although he makes a fair point.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support for my argument.

The other process point that I wish to make is that the lords debated their amendments in July and the Government tabled their amendment last Friday, but the amendment was not available in the Vote Office until this morning—that was despite my having asked for it on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. I had no access to the amendment tabled by the Government until today. I understand it to be normal practice, just as a matter of courtesy, for ministerial offices to write to shadow spokespeople when the Government table amendments to Bills in which the spokespeople have been involved, in order to give them notification. I say gently to the Minister that it would have been nice if he had been able to notify us of amendments.

It would also have been good if the Whips Office had, instead of stating categorically all this week, until about 3 pm yesterday, that we were not going to be dealing with this Bill this afternoon, owned up to the truth, which was that the intention was always to deal with this Bill this afternoon. Indeed, the Whips Office had told the Minister so, and the fact that this Bill was going to be discussed this afternoon had been set out in his diary for several weeks.

[Mr Bone]

The shadow Minister makes a good point about the Whips Office. Will he be here tomorrow to support my Bill abolishing the Whips Office?

[Chris Bryant]

I am happy to abolish the Government Whips Office, but I am very fond of my Whips Office. It is always best to remain in as good an odour as possible with one’s Whips.

The simple point of process is that when the Leader of the House announces in the future business—as has been said, we hope that the Backbench Business Committee will do this in future—that consideration of Lords amendments may take place, he never specifies the Bill to which that relates. That is an unfortunate way of doing business, and it might make much more sense if, in future, the Government were to announce the Bills in question. If every Member of the House had known at the beginning of the week that we were going to be dealing with this Bill today, the Chamber might have been packed to the rafters—I note that it is not. That is despite the fact that we are sure to hear a wonderful speech from the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), and many would have crowded in just to see her jacket this afternoon.

The amendment, in essence, confesses that the Government have not achieved consensus on a major constitutional change. Again, I say gently to the Minister that when any constitutional change is being made, especially when pre-legislative scrutiny has not been undertaken, when no draft legislation has been produced, when the change was not adumbrated in one of the governing parties’ manifestos and when it is a significant change from what was in the manifesto of either of the two governing parties, it is all the more important that Ministers and the Government in general proceed on the basis of consensus. Although I am often a fierce critic of the House of Lords, of its hereditary principle and of its appointment principle—I call it the “patronage principle”—I believe that the Lords plays an important stop-gap role in constitutional affairs. That is why I believe that this amendment owns up to the fact that, as Lord Butler of Brockwell put it, this legislation has been introduced

“without proper consultation, preparation or consideration.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 July 2011; Vol. 729, c. 1080.]

For many years, we relished listening in this Chamber to Lord Cormack, the greatest par-li-a-ment-ar-i-an of his age—he used about seven syllables when saying that word. As he said, this is an

“ill thought-out, unnecessary and bad Bill.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 July 2011; Vol. 729, c. 1087.]

There are specific problems with this amendment, most notably because it does not add anything. If their lordships think that it is a concession, they are completely mistaken, because already the Government will have to undertake post-legislative scrutiny on this legislation in the next Parliament. All the amendment does is provide for another version of post-legislative scrutiny, but such scrutiny will already have taken place four years before the date in 2020 when the amendment suggests it should occur.

I am somewhat of a suspicious mind; I think that the reason why the Deputy Prime Minister has insisted on this date in 2020 is his ambition to put up joint Liberal Democrat-Conservative candidates at the next general election and to be able to continue the coalition for two parliamentary Sessions. I say that because it was not an immaculate conception that led to this constitutional Bill; it was conceived behind the bike sheds as a result of the coalition partners—the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats—trying to fix the length of this parliamentary Session so that nobody could abscond should any difficulties arise. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) is just waving to me or whether he would like to intervene. It appears that he wishes to intervene.

[Chris Bryant]

I believe that earlier this week the Prime Minister described himself as a “Pragmatic liberal conservative Eurosceptic”—he used different arrangements of those words in different arenas, as is his wont.

In addition, the amendment presumes that not only this Parliament, but a second one will run for a full five years. If that was not the case, choosing to specify dates in June and November 2020 would be particularly bizarre, as they might fall two years into another Session. This is where the following statement by Lord Armstrong of Ilminster is correct, although I confess that I do not quite understand the first bit:

“It is all Lombard Street to a China orange that the time will come when a premature Dissolution would be to the manifest benefit of the country”.——[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 July 2011; Vol. 729, c. 1088.]

I think that that is true. If we consider the recent history of the United Kingdom, we see that even on occasions when the Government had a decent majority, such as in 1964 and 1974—although the latter situation was more complicated—they decided to hold a new election because they felt that they needed a mandate to deal with a specific set of issues that had not arisen at the previous general election. I believe that that will happen again and that it will be in the interests of Parliament to have the greatest degree of flexibility to allow it to happen, if not to encourage it to happen. That is why this amendment, in trying to entrench not just one fixed term, but two—in the interests of the coalition rather than the country—is misguided. As I said, the amendment adds nothing because post-legislative scrutiny, a fixed part of the way in which we carry out our business, will apply to this legislation.

The Minister, charming as he is, tried to assert that fixed-term Parliaments are used in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as in relation to local government elections and so on. However, these do not seem to have been very fixed in the past few years. Indeed, in the short time that he has been in power he has already changed the term for the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the local government elections in Northern Ireland. Now the Government have just decided that there will not be a fixed term for the police commissioners, because the first term will be slightly shorter than the second one, as the Government are not going to be able to get their legislation through in time to have elections next May and so the first elections will take place next November. So I am profoundly sceptical even about the ability of the hard-line fixed-termers, such as him, to deliver a fixed-term Parliament, because of the way in which politics works.

I wish to make a few comments about the specifics of the amendment. It states:

“A majority of the members of the committee are to be members of the House of Commons.”

I do not believe that the Government consulted anyone in the Opposition on this amendment. I am sure that had the Minister done so, he would now be leaping to his feet to defend himself—it appears, therefore, that he has not sought a consensus on this constitutional change. If consultation had taken place, we might have made some suggestions about how to constitute such a committee. It might have been better to state from the outset that it should involve Members of the House of Commons. I think that we should return to the practice of the 15th and 16th centuries—I am sure I have one hon. Member on my side here—which was that Joint Committees of both Houses should have two Members of the House of Commons for every Member of the House of Lords. I admit that that was at a time when there were perhaps 60 or 70 Members of the House of Lords and 480 or so of the House of Commons, whereas they are getting towards having double the number we have in this House. None the less, while this is a democratically elected House and that is not, it would make more sense for the majority from this House to be 2:1.

I note en passant that one Member of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform—not from the Opposition side of the House—pointed out that having such a large number of members of a Joint Committee makes it very difficult to do serious business. It is quite difficult with large Select Committees, but with 24 or 26 members of a Joint Committee of both Houses, it is phenomenally difficult to make progress.

[Mr Bone]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

Of course I will give way to the hon. and gentlemanly Gentleman.

[Mr Bone]

I was just reflecting on the numbers. Are there not about 800 peers and 600-odd Members of this House? I think the hon. Gentleman’s calculations are slightly wrong.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, I was noting the acceleration. The coalition has a commitment in its agreement that it will keep appointing more Member of the House of Lords until the numbers mirror the representation in the House of Commons. That means that they have another 269 to appoint. We are pretty much getting on for having up to double the number of Members at that end as there are here. In addition, the Government want to elect some Members so that if the Government get their way, without sensible amendments from the Opposition, we will have twice as many Members of the House of Lords as of the House of Commons.

The Minister said that the danger of a sunset clause would be that it would be like switching a light bulb on and off. What he fails to understand is something that some of us have been arguing for through several Bills—that is, many of the measures contained in the Bill would be far better dealt with through the Standing Orders of this House, particularly anything to do with a no confidence motion. There is a danger that otherwise they will be justiciable in the courts. He refuses to accept that. If it had been a question of Standing Orders, then as with any other Standing Order this would be a matter for the House to change. It would not need three readings, nor would it have to go to two Houses; it would just be a matter of a simple vote.

The Minister sets his mind against sunset clauses, but I remember when he used to sit over on the Opposition Benches—what halcyon days—and used to campaign for sunset clauses galore on Government legislation. With virtually every change we introduced through legislation on security and policing, for instance, the then Opposition demanded a sunset clause. On civil liberties, control orders and all these different elements of legislation there was a campaign from Opposition Members saying that there must be a sunset clause. Quite often, we succumbed to that campaign and we put them in. In a large amount of our civil liberties legislation, there were sunset clauses and provisions had to be renewed every year.

One of the most significant sunset clauses in our constitution refers to the inability of the Crown to have a standing Army unless there is a vote in the House of Commons every five years. That is a sunset clause on the single most important part of our constitution: namely, the Crown’s ability to defend the country. The Minister is completely wrong to invent this new concept that we cannot have a sunset clause in a constitutional Bill—and only in such a Bill.

The Minister also said that there are no sunset clauses in relation to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but the single difference between this case and those instances is that there was absolutely no consultation with the wider public on this legislation. As for setting up devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, there was lengthy and protracted cross-party consensus on precisely how everything should be set up. I think he is whispering something about the Conservatives not agreeing to devolution in Scotland, but we rejoice that the sinner repenteth. They had the opportunity to take part in that lengthy process of consultation and that is surely the proper process for changing the constitution.

Let me come to my penultimate point. The Minister says that those in the Lords who have presented amendments have good intentions, but he reminds me of something that happened when I went to a theatre a few years ago. There was a couple who had had a terrible row sitting in front of me and just before the play started, the woman turned to the man and said, “And the worst of it is that you’re so blasted pate-ronising.” He kissed her on the forehead and said, “It’s pat-ronising, dear.”

To be honest, I thought the Minister’s approach to their lordships—who are senior constitutional experts and have seen many of the corridors of power far more extensively than he or I—was downright patronising. I think they have come up with a good solution. The coalition Government can have their five years and there will be a general election in 2015 unless one of the Members for Bedfordshire manages to split the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister from one another, but thereafter it should be for the House of Commons and the House of Lords to decide whether to continue with this legislation.

I am sure that the Government Whips, through their nefarious processes, will have engineered that there are plenty of people to see off their lordships’ amendment this afternoon, but I tell their lordships that the Government are attempting to get them to sell their soul for a mess of pottage. The Government amendment is not an amendment that is worth supporting—

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

Debate between Peter Bone and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The problem with what the Government are presenting this evening is that, having had a pause, they have decided to fast forward without the intervening period. The truth of the matter is that they will not inspire confidence in the running of the NHS by moving at a gallop and they will not improve morale by moving at such speed without proper scrutiny. I must say to Government Members that last night’s business motion, which stated that no amendments could even be moved today, was an absolute disgrace. What are they frightened of?

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

In a moment.

Are the Government frightened that some of their Back Benchers might vote for an amendment? I can assure them that there are very few courageous people on their side of the House, but the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) is one of them.

[Mr Bone]

I agree with the sentiments that the hon. Gentleman is expressing, but could he explain to me why the official Opposition did not object last night?

[Chris Bryant]

Because there was no opportunity to have a debate last night. It would have been nice to be able to expose the problems with the way the Government are dealing with the Bill, but unfortunately such an opportunity was unavailable to us. It is a disgrace that there is no opportunity for amendment. It is also a disgrace that the whole Bill is not being recommitted. We have seen none of the amendments. The Government are basically saying, “We’ve decided where we want to change the Bill, and only those bits shall be available for discussion by the Committee.” That is a completely inappropriate abrogation of the powers of this House to the Crown. The person who should be most disgraced by that is the Deputy Leader of the House, because he has said so many times that he believes in better scrutiny and yet is now abandoning that.

United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill

Debate between Peter Bone and Chris Bryant

Friday 18th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Bone]

He wants to be on it too!

[Chris Bryant]

No, this is an application not to be on the Bill Committee. I have heard these arguments so many times that I have no desire to hear them all over again, even if it would give us an opportunity to hear the whole of the Minister’s speech on the subject. May I point out to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) that greed is a sin? Taking so many private Members’ Bills on one day might be thought somewhat greedy.

Parliamentary Reform

Debate between Peter Bone and Chris Bryant

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Bone]

The right hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point. On transparency—he was discussing votes—does he share my desire that, in order for people to see what is really going on in Parliament, if voting is organised by the business manager, in other words it is whipped, it should be displayed in public and recorded in Hansard? If the party is whipping people to vote in a particular way, those outside should be able to see it.

[Chris Bryant]

They could tweet it.

European External Action Service

Debate between Peter Bone and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I think that the Minister said glitz and glamour. Perhaps Cathy will defend herself.

The important point is that we have before us a slightly difficult process. I fully understand why it has been difficult for the Government to bring things before a European Scrutiny Committee, though I gently say that it would have been better to have had a European Scrutiny Committee in place by now. I gather that we will have a splendid cream-suited Chair, in the shape of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), but it would be good if we had a full Committee and if that were able to get on with its work as fast as possible. As the Minister will know, I was taking this business through the House at a difficult time in the run-up to the general election, and I tried as far as possible to keep the two Committees in the Lords and in the Commons informed about the process of the discussions that were going on at every stage. But the fact that we have now had several months without a European Scrutiny Committee does not enable this House to do the business of scrutinising these and many other decisions better.

I would just ask the Minister briefly, on the matter of the intergovernmental conference, which was not announced to the House and which was held in the margins of another meeting and agreed to by the Prime Minister without any announcement to the House, if he could at some point provide us with the minutes of that conference. They have not yet been available anywhere, either on EUROPA or in the Library of the House.

[Mr Bone]

I am interested that the Opposition will not seek to divide the House on this. Has not the shadow Minister just made a very good case of the fact that the House has not scrutinised the business properly? Would not that be a good reason to seek to divide the House?

[Chris Bryant]

I shall be voting on the substance of the matter, which I wholeheartedly support and, I have to say—this will come as a great disappointment to the hon. Gentleman—in words almost identical to those used by the Minister. No, I do not think it is a good reason to seek to divide the House, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to, obviously he is free so to do.

The reason we support the European External Action Service, and have for some time now, is that we believe that we are moving, as the Foreign Secretary himself said earlier this year in a speech, into a much more multilateral world, where we cannot just accept that there will be two great powers—the United States of America and China. We have to make sure that our power, both exercised independently ourselves and through the European Union, is used to its best effect. We know that in relation to the emerging economies of China, Russia, India, Mexico and Brazil, it is all the more important that Europe takes a united stance if we are to achieve effective outcomes.

We also know that the EU’s previous foreign relations structure has been grossly inefficient, thus an individual country has a desk officer for the European Council and a desk officer for the European Commission, and, on top of that, two different departments within the Commission might have desk officers. That is clearly a duplication—not the one to which hon. Members referred earlier, but one that we want to see done away with; and that is why we support the EAS.

Backbench Business Committee

Debate between Peter Bone and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is surprising and novel for me to be called to speak so early in a debate. My speaking note says: “I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for X, who made a powerful and thoughtful speech.” Well, the shadow Leader of the House did just that.

This is an historic moment. These are radical reforms of Parliament and we are lucky to have two outstanding parliamentarians in the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House, both of whom believe in the House. If any of my remarks are critical, it is only because I want to improve matters. Some of my concerns revolve around the fact that there is to be a review in a year’s time, and we are not assured that the same Leader of the House and Deputy Leader of the House will still be sitting at the Dispatch Box then.

We are leaving behind a decade in which Parliament and the role of Parliament were diminished year by year. Back Benchers’ powers were reduced each year, there was more centralisation, and debate in Parliament was either extensively curtailed or, in some cases, non-existent. Parts of some Bills went through without even being debated in this House, and we had to rely on the other place. The media were routinely told in advance about new policy before statements were made in the House, and attempts were made by the Whips to crush the thoughts of independent Back Benchers. Parliament was seen as a rubber stamp for whatever the Prime Minister wanted. The number of sitting days was reduced, and the amount of time allowed for private Members’ Bills was savagely cut. People outside Parliament recognised that that was happening, and they wanted not only to see changes to the expenses system but to have a Government—of whatever political persuasion—who could be subject to serious scrutiny and held to account.

Things are changing, however. We have a new Speaker who is determined to protect the role of Parliament and, particularly, the power of Back-Bench MPs. We have only to look at the speed with which questions are dealt with, the restriction on Front-Bench speakers, and the number of urgent questions that are granted to see that improvements have already been made.

We also have a new coalition Government who—this next bit is very important—have abandoned the automatic programming of Bills. I have to say that I do not support the Government’s position on the programming of tonight’s business, because I believe that this debate could have gone through the night. I was not prepared to support the Opposition, however, because I felt that their stance represented pure opportunism, given that they had constantly voted for programme motions in the past.

We have also seen the Government overseeing the election of Deputy Speakers and Select Committee Chairmen. Real progress has already been made—

[Chris Bryant]

But that was put in place by us.

[Mr Bone]

The hon. Gentleman says that that was put in place by the previous Government, and that is true. Tonight, however, we are taking a huge leap forward with this raft of radical proposals. The establishment of a business committee, the introduction of September sittings and the speedy announcement of private Members’ Bill days are all signs that the Government have hit the ground running and are really keen on major reforms. But certain things could be improved, and many of the amendments that have been tabled need to be discussed, because they could improve on what are already important, radical proposals.

In the short time available to me, I want to speak to amendment (a), which stands in my name, relating to the number of days allocated to private Members’ Bills. In the Executive’s haste to bring this matter to the House, they have failed to appreciate that the number of days allowed for private Members’ Bills needs to be increased to compensate for the curtailing of private Members’ Bills in the previous Parliamentary Session. The amendment states:

“Line 1, leave out from ‘That’ to end and add—

‘(1) Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business) shall have effect for this Session with the following modification, namely:

In paragraph (4) the word ‘eighteen’ shall be substituted for the word ‘thirteen’ in line 42; and

(2) Private Members’ Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 10 and 17 September, 15 and 22 October, 12 and 19 November and 3 December 2010 and 21 January, 4 and 11 February, 4 and 18 March, 1 April, 13 May, 10, 17 and 24 June and 1 July 2011.’”

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful for that intervention; I have to say that I thought there was a little bit of smoke and mirrors there. We have already heard the comments that the Leader of the House made during the previous debate on this topic, but some other comments—from both the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House—perhaps express a slightly different view.

[Chris Bryant]

I wholeheartedly support the amendment that the hon. Gentleman has tabled on private Members’ Bills, but I hope he is going to go on to say that the real problem with such Bills is not the number of days we devote to them, but the shenanigans that go on on a Friday morning. Either enough people cannot be got together for a quorum or Bills are talked out, and all the rest of it. Surely what we need is a system that treats Back-Bench Members with respect because they might have very good ideas that they want to get on to the statute book, so we should not be playing these sorts of silly games.

[Mr Bone]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, but because of the way in which the business has been set out today, I have not touched on that matter, as it might have been ruled out of order. I have sought to amend the motion in the best way I could.

Early attempts to increase the time allotted for private Members’ Bills under the previous Labour Administration sadly fell by the wayside. I very much hope that our new leadership will be taking an altogether happier approach towards something that it is at the heart of ensuring a more balanced and free legislative process. How the leadership responds will to a certain extent be a litmus test of the Government’s commitment to the new type of politics.

This is not the first time that I have proposed such an amendment. The last time I did so was on 6 January 2010, when I and several other hon. Members challenged the Government on why they were cutting the days available for debate on private Members’ Bills from 13, as required by the Standing Orders, to a mere eight. The then Government’s answer was that because the parliamentary Session was a particularly short one, there should be fewer days pro rata for private Members’ Bills. I pointed out then that nowhere did the Standing Orders mention any exemption for unusually short or long parliamentary Sessions, but the Government won the vote that day.

I note that, on that day, the Deputy Leader of the House voted for my amendment. In fact, on 6 January 2010, he stated:

“I agree with an interesting point that the hon. Member for Wellingborough made… Perhaps there should be a provision in Standing Orders relating the number of days devoted to private Members’ business to the length of the Session. That would be perfectly logical and is probably a view shared by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire. There is logic in saying that there should be more days for a long Session and fewer for a short Session, and I do not think that any of us would disagree with that.”—[Official Report, 6 January 2010; Vol. 503, c. 230.]

I could not have put it better myself.

European Affairs

Debate between Peter Bone and Chris Bryant

Thursday 3rd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Far be it from me to take any mantles upon myself at all, although I thought that I might be Warden Hodges, who was always the nemesis of Captain Mainwaring.

Anyway, we had a splendid speech from the hon. Member for Wyre Forest—[Interruption.] He has moved! He gave us some wonderful geographical outlines of his constituency, and I thought that I could just hear Elgar playing in the background.

We also had a splendid speech from the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby), who talked about how the French razed Brighton at some point. He thought that the people of Brighton were rather troubled by the French, but then he went on to praise the Norman church. I think that at some point the Normans were the French, were they not? So there seemed to be a bit of inconsistency there, but he made a splendidly short speech, and brevity is the soul of wit in this Chamber. [Interruption.] That does not apply to me. [Interruption.] Neither brevity nor wit.

We had a splendid speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), who gave us a great sense of a passion for culture, which is not just an add-on to political life, but absolutely intrinsic to the life of her constituency. She also referred to our former leader, Harold Wilson, and his time in the constituency.

We had a splendid contribution from the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy)—a peculiarly named and, perhaps, constructed constituency. He referred to it as a doughnut constituency and he did, indeed, sound like the representative of the York tourist board, as of course all hon. Members do at some point—well, not for York, obviously. He said that it is his 39th birthday, so we wish him well. He does not look 39 yet, but I can assure him, given the way that Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is treating us all, that within a year he will look considerably more than 40. I also note that he looks a little like his father, the Member of the European Parliament.

We heard a splendid speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), who referred to Doug Henderson. I hope that she will be running marathons as well. He was, I think, the third fastest marathon runner in the House; there is a tradition that several are run every year. She referred to Rolos—I never liked Rolos very much—and Andrews Liver Salts, which did not seem like a particularly interesting combination of food. She is a very astute woman, because she praised the local media assiduously; I am sure that that will get her a fine headline in her local newspaper.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) made a fine speech. I did not understand any of the stuff about football, because I have never understood football; I look forward to switching off all the televisions over the next month. She referred to Chris Mullin, a Member who was respected across all parts of the House for his work—and feared, in equal measure, because of his diaries. There are more instalments to come, I fear.

The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) kindly referred to Mike O’Brien, who was, again, respected by many people. He mentioned the bun day at his local school, with the giving out of buns. It sounded as though that was happening during the general election, which I thought counted as “treating”, but there we are. He referred to his time in the Royal Army Medical Corps and in Banja Luka in what was, I think, normally referred to as the mental factory rather than the metal factory. It is good to have such a mix of people who have served in the armed forces in this House, especially when we are still at war.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) made a very good speech. For me, the most moving point was when she referred to the squandering of the talents of so many women. She has experienced that in her own family’s history, but it is also true in very many walks of life, and it is something that we still need significantly to address.

The hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) started with a risqué joke. I myself have never used a risqué joke, or tried to be risqué, in the past. He said that he loved Europe, but of course we knew what was coming—he does not really like Europe very much, or any of its institutions, and certainly not the single European currency.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) made an important speech, particularly in relation to the need for 21st-century buildings if we are to provide 21st-century educational standards. He talked about the exploitation of foreign workers, with a very interesting story from his own family.

The hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) said that he is an Iron Maiden fan, or supporter; in any case, he intends to wear his T-shirt in here at some point. He mentioned various films because he has a history of his own in that line of work.

My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) made an extremely passionate speech referring to the problems that mining constituencies have had—something that I know about from my constituency in Rhondda, where we still have to overcome some of the problems that were given to us from the past.

The hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) mentioned Wat Tyler’s revolt. I thought that we were about to hear a radical, left-wing speech and that he was going to give us Wat Tyler’s lines, “When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?”—but then we know, of course, that it is every single member of the new Cabinet.

The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) went right back in history to the time of Julius Caesar and said that the border controls were rather good in those days; well, they were not, really, because we were entirely invaded. He described Dover as the gateway to England, whereas I think of Bristol as the gateway to England from Wales—a far more important avenue.

The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) started by talking about the death warrant for Charles I. I was a little bewildered at that point, because I thought that he was going to blame that on the European Union.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

indicated assent.

[Chris Bryant]

I see the hon. Gentleman nodding. He thinks that everything bad that has ever happened is basically down to the European Union, the Labour Government or, for all I know, me personally.

There were also important contributions that were actually about Europe. In particular, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) referred to the issues relating to the Western European Union, in which he has played a significant part. I hope that the new Minister for Europe will be able to answer some of those questions, particularly about what his plans are for making sure there is a replacement, so that the important job of scrutinising European foreign and defence policy is not just assumed by the European Parliament. That would not be the right place for that to be done.

My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), who I hope is not only the past Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, but the future Chairman, made some important points about how we conduct scrutiny in the House. I have always thought that we have not done it very well and, during my time as a Minister, I tried to improve that. I hope that the Minister will be able to say whether he will table a new scrutiny reserve resolution for that Committee as soon as possible. That was very much in the pipeline before the general election and I hope it can be arranged as soon as possible.

I celebrate the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) in the Chamber. Even if she can sometimes slightly irritate me, I am delighted she is here. The doughtiness of her campaign in her constituency stood her in good stead in the general election and, even though we sometimes disagree with her, I am sure that we all accept that the doughtiness of her argument is well put. She made some important points this afternoon about the euro and the genuine crisis in Europe, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins). However, he did say something rather odd about Argentina’s economy, which I would suggest is nowhere near as prosperous as he seems to think.

The speeches of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) speak for themselves and I cannot add to them. He put his Front Benchers on the spot a bit about whether there should be a referendum, which was an important point also well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). One of the most controversial European issues––it certainly has been over the past six months in British politics, although it is rarely expressed in public––is that of migration within the European Union, and I do not understand why accession treaties should not, under the logic being advanced by the new Government, be subject to a referendum as well. It is one of the issues that will most materially affect member states.