Tourism: Northumberland

Debate between Roger Gale and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Westminster Hall

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

I again welcome you to the Chair, Sir Roger, and it is good to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris). He is actually named in my documents from the Department as “Joe Hexham”; that is probably how he will be presenting himself at the next general election as well, I should think—unless boundaries change in some bizarre, unhelpful way. It is good to see so many new MPs wanting to talk about tourism and the visitor economy, because it is so important to so many parts of the country. As part of the creative industries, it is important that the Government are saying that it is also part of our industrial future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham said in passing that this is about not just the legacy of the past—he listed some of the things in Northumberland from our historical past that are important—but what we do today. One of the things we need to change about our whole tourism strategy as a country is that there is a danger that international visitors think, “The United Kingdom never changes. It’s always got that Parliament building, castles, the monarchy—things like that. You can go next year or the year after.” Actually, we want people to think that now is the time to come to the United Kingdom: “We’re not going to put it off. We’re going to come now.” If they come now, they might come again next year because they want to see a different part of the United Kingdom.

I have a word of caution. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham said, “Wouldn’t it be a good idea if, when we as the UK are selling our tourism abroad, we specifically mention Northumberland?” I get it. I am a Welsh MP, and I have often said that it would be good if we started mentioning Wales a bit more in our tourism marketing around the world. The question is whether it works.

I have an anecdotal story, but it is true none the less: Charlotte Church, a young Welsh singer—at the time much younger—was asked to go and sing, for George Bush I think, in the White House. She sang very beautifully, and afterwards George Bush was introduced to her and asked where she was from. She said, “Wales.”. He said, “What state is that in?” To which she said, “Terrible.”. There was a complete meeting of minds.

That story makes an important point about our tourism strategy. I completely agree that it is embarrassing that so many international visitors conceive of coming to the UK as being only about visiting London—or, as I said in the other debate, perhaps Bath or Oxford and Cambridge as a day visit and then maybe Edinburgh. There is far more to see in the United Kingdom. The question is how we best effect that change.

We may be able to do several things. There is no point in my rehearsing the numbers of people who go to the north-east in compared with London, and the difference in spend; my hon. Friend did that perfectly. I want to change that, but that will require a five or 10-year strategy, which I hope we will be able to publish over the coming months. I would be interested to talk to people from different parts of the country about making sure that we put a strategy in place that will genuinely work.

My hon. Friend also talked about the difficulty of ensuring that local people are not shunted out by the tourist influx. One of the things I am keen to work on more is the question of short-term lets. If, as often happens on the coastline, large numbers of short-term lets are all full for two or three months and completely empty for the rest of the year, that does not seem like a win for the local community. That is why, building on what the previous Government did with their legislation on short-term lets, we hope to launch a consultation fairly soon on how we can develop a register of such lets, so that at least we know what is out there, and on how we could use that register to better effect to try to get the benefits of tourism, including visitors not just coming during the day, but staying overnight, without the downsides that sometimes come with that.

Several Members mentioned particular places in Northumberland. I think “Vera” got a look-in several times, which is inevitable—I do not know what Northumberland is going to do if “Vera” ever stops. Brenda is a wonderful actress, but I do not know whether she has another 50 years in her.

My favourite place, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), is Lindisfarne. We have a little painting of Lindisfarne in our downstairs toilet at home in Wales: it is a place of phenomenal beauty and extraordinary history. It is extremely well run and has thousands of visitors every year. I have swum in the sea at Cullercoats—in winter, too, which is quite an ambitious thing.

Both Bamburgh castle and Alnwick castle have been referred to. In fact, I think I am right in saying that Northumberland has more castles than any other county in England. Wales might beat everywhere else on the castle front, but that is Edward I for you. I think Alnwick castle is the second largest in England; it certainly has the second largest number of rooms. It is still the home of the Northumberlands and an extraordinary place to visit.

Tourism for music was not mentioned, but the north-east has a phenomenal music tradition. Sam Fender was on in Newcastle when Pink was on in Gateshead: I know that because I went to Pink. It was a phenomenal concert—the whole region was alive, with every single hotel room in the whole area taken—but people may wonder whether it is a good idea to have two massive concerts at the same time, how that can be managed to best effect and whether it is good for the local economy or whether it would be better to spread them out.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) referred to having the best fish and chips. I have been in many debates in my years in Parliament, and I must have heard nearly every MP say that the best fish and chips come from such and such a place in their constituency. I warn her against that, because you end up eating an awful lot of fish and chips in the process. I am sure her frame can take it, but I would just say that what makes a good fish and chip shop is actually its range—and the best fish and chip shop equipment is provided by Preston and Thomas. It is no longer functioning in Cardiff, but it had the best range none the less. I know that because my father’s best man was either Preston or Thomas. I can’t remember which.

I turn to the destination development partnership pilots. Up in the north-east, as I saw when I visited not long ago, there is a real determination to seize the opportunity, not just in individual constituencies or local authority areas but across the whole region. I really praise Kim McGuinness: she is absolutely determined that the numbers are going to change. A key part of it is about trying to bring in a new centre—let us hope that it may become a national centre of excellence for hospitality and tourism—based in Newcastle, but working across the whole of the region. It would be good to get additional investment in that.

One thing that has often worried me—this relates to a point that the shadow Minister made—is that in many other countries around the world, people are so proud of tourism that they think of a job in the hospitality industry not as something you do if you really have to, because you have to pay for a course at university or are on a gap year or whatever, but as something people do for the whole of their life, because they are proud of the community they live in and want people to enjoy it. It is a proper career for a whole life.

To enable that here, we need to do several things. We need proper determination across the country that that is what we are going to do. We have to change the whole ethos around serving people in the hospitality industry. We have to enable the industry to work with the Government to develop more career pathways. Tourism must be a key part of the industrial strategy. All the different bits of it, from the moment somebody lands in this country to the moment they leave, need to be singing in the same way. We also have to reform the apprenticeship levy so that it works for small businesses and the creative industries in general. We have to bind together all of the creative industries: we have already talked about music, but lots of people travel for sport as well. It all needs to work together if we are really going to change the prosperity of this country as it derives from tourism.

That is why what is happening in the north-east is so important. I visited not long ago, and I expect to visit in the next fortnight as well. I am very keen to work with those on the ground who want to ensure that tourism becomes an even more significant part of the economy in the north-east.

I welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti). I have written down, “Welcome him and be nice.” To be fair, I am quite fond of him: we were on the Foreign Affairs Committee together. Where it is possible for us all to drive the economy forward together, there is no partisan advantage. I am very happy to work with him. I know he has my number and I have his, in more ways than one. I very much hope that we can work together.

The hon. Gentleman asked about a sector-wide plan. As I said, in the next few weeks I will make a speech about tourism in which I hope to lay out some of our ambitions. It may be that we want to do a much more substantial piece of work on our long-term and medium-term ambitions in tourism for the whole of the United Kingdom. We will be thinking about that over the next few weeks.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the issue of seasonal staffing. That is a legitimate point that relates to issues that other parts of the economy have had with seasonal workers coming in from other parts of the country. I was really struck, when I was talking to the French Tourism Minister a couple of weeks ago, by the fact that we have a seasonal workers deal with France so that British people can work in ski resorts there. It affects the best part of 100,000 people, who go over and work there every year. It may be that there are perfectly sensible arrangements that we can come to in that regard.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the additional support that we will provide. That sounds like the Conservative party asking for additional spending, but the problem with additional spending is that it normally requires additional taxation—this is one of the problems of opposition. My party has been in opposition in Parliament for more of my years than it has been in government. If I may make a suggestion to him, it is that you cannot ask for one without willing the other. If the Leader of the Opposition made a fatal flaw last week in her questions to the Prime Minister, it was not recognising that if you are going to ask for more money to be spent, you also have to will the ends and the means.

I fully understand the problems that the visitor and hospitality sector faces. It is tough running a pub or a restaurant, and it has been for many years. The margins are extremely narrow. The hon. Member for Cheltenham said that we had slashed business rate relief, or cut it—I don’t know that he used the word “slashed”—from 75% to 40%. He could have said that we took it from 0% to 40%, because it was not guaranteed beyond the end of the year. We have made it permanent, which is a good thing.

I fully understand the problems that the sector faces, but some of them relate to long-term stability and sustainability and trying to ensure that businesses have the staff they need. I hope that the north-east will be essential in developing that for the whole of the United Kingdom, perhaps in association with other countries around the world. We also need an NHS that functions, buses that turn up on time, a railway system that works, local authorities that mend the roads and a planning system that works and is properly resourced. The whole public sector needs to function in order for the private sector to function. That is why I am proud of the Budget: in the medium and long term, it will help us to secure our economic future.

As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham and all Members in this Chamber will agree, tourism is an essential part of our economic future. It is the fourth largest industry in the world. We have lost share in that over recent years, but even if we were to continue losing share, we could still grow it within the United Kingdom. I am absolutely determined to do that, but it cannot be based just on bringing more and more people to London. I would like more people to come to London, but it cannot just be about that. It has to be based on understanding the full panoply of what we have to offer across the whole of the United Kingdom. Sometimes that will be based on art forms, like being able to see where films or TV series were made or where musicians are from. I note that Framlingham castle is now apparently more famous for Ed Sheeran’s song “Castle on the Hill” than it is for Queen Mary discovering that she was about to be Queen, which was historically what it sold itself on.

I go right back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham made at the very beginning. It is not just the legacy of the past that we need to celebrate in our tourism; it is what Britain is today. That is the best way to secure a long-term, secure economic future for our tourism industry in Northumberland and across the whole of the United Kingdom.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

As the Chairman I am not allowed to participate in the debate, but as the Minister comes from the land of song he might like to know that Brenda lives in Thanet and is the chairman of the Thanet male voice choir.

Tourism: Bedfordshire

Debate between Roger Gale and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Westminster Hall

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

Sir Roger, you are not Jurassic. You are a mere slip of a boy, in parliamentary terms anyway.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing this debate. I think one of his first parliamentary questions was on this subject. He is obviously very determined to make sure that tourism and the expansion of the tourism offer in his constituency is a key part of securing economic development in his area. I guarantee that if he comes up with any good ideas that we can steal off him, we will be like the proverbial magpie—we will pick it up and run with it. If he ever wants to have a meeting with officials in my Department to discuss specific issues around tourism in Mid Bedfordshire—perhaps we might do that with all the Bedfordshire MPs—I would be more than happy to arrange that.

It is good to have an MP called Blake. The hon. Member might be the first MP in the history of Parliament to be called Blake. I noted the other day that “Blake’s 7” is back—Sir Roger, you can probably remember “Blake’s 7”.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I am afraid I do not.

[Chris Bryant]

You can remember some things still, Sir Roger. By the time “Blake’s 7” ended, it did not have seven people in it, and it did not have a character called Blake in it, which was a bit rum.

I agreed above all with a point that the hon. Member made in his very first paragraph. He talked about Bedfordshire not just being a place that people pass through. I am very conscious of that. My brother lives in St Albans and I am endlessly getting on trains that say the final destination is Bedford, but I never go to Bedford, because I get off at St Albans.

There is a key aspect to what we need to achieve in our tourism and visitor economy strategy over the next few years. It is all very well people coming for a day or half a day and going out with the kids or whatever, but we need to make sure that there is the right kind of accommodation and accommodation mix at different price points in a whole series of different places around the country. Matching the accommodation with the needs and desires of both domestic and international tourists is a key part of what we need to secure in our tourism strategy.

The hon. Member gave us the Cook’s tour, but when he was talking about Wrest Park, which is run by English Heritage, he did not mention that 194,693 people visited in 2023. It has a great Narnia event, which starts, I think, next week or at the end of this week, and that is why parts of it are closed at the moment. He also referred to Houghton House, Woburn Abbey and the safari park. Some 489,751 people visited the safari park, and that was in 2015, so it is likely that the numbers have gone up since then.

The hon. Member focused on what is in his constituency, but we should look at the whole county—of course, tourists and visitors do not say, “I wonder whose constituency I am going to visit today”; they think about the whole offer in an area, including transport links and whether they will be able to park. One of my ambitions in life is to have one parking app for the whole United Kingdom, so that people do not have to use a phone to download a new app every time they go to park somewhere. It is especially irritating when the local council has just changed the app to another app, and people cannot remember the passcode and all the rest of it. Those are the aspects of someone’s journey—every bit, end to end—that we need to think about when we try to create an effective tourism strategy for the United Kingdom.

I would add to the hon. Member’s list the John Bunyan museum in Bedford and, for that matter, the Panacea museum. That is something that politicians have been seeking forever: if only there were a panacea that could cure all ills—although the danger with a panacea is that it is a mirage, and does not really offer what it proposes.

Let me talk about some of the things we are already doing for the visitor economy across the whole United Kingdom. From representations that were made to me immediately after the Government came into office in July, I know that a lot of people in the visitor economy and hospitality industry were particularly worried about the cliff edge that they saw coming at the end of this year in relation to business rates. I am glad that we could take forward the 40% relief. I know that it is not 70%, but placing it on a permanent footing is important, because it allows hospitality businesses to make investments for the future and have a secure financial footing.

One issue in Bedfordshire and many other parts of the country is short-term lets, whether through Airbnb, individual people renting out a room or whatever it may be. In areas with heavy concentrations of visitors at particular times of the year, the art is to come up with a scheme so that we get the benefits of the visitor economy—all the footfall and added money that that brings to a local area—without the danger of ending up with a completely vacated town or village when the tourism period has ended. That is why, following the previous Government’s legislation on short-term lets, we will soon consult on precisely how to implement the legislation, so that we can, at the very least, have a clear understanding of what short-term lets there are across the whole country and then, if necessary, take further action.

The hon. Member rightly referred to local visitor economy partnerships and the fact that there is not one in Bedfordshire at the moment. That is an issue of concern. As he knows, the local visitor economy partnership programme was part of a new vision for England’s tourism management landscape and was recommended by the independent destination management organisations review. In February 2023, VisitEngland launched the LVEP accreditation programme, which will continue through 2024-25 and which seeks to accredit high-performing, strategic and financially resilient organisations that can lead visitor economy development in their areas, working with businesses and local authorities. As I understand it, VisitEngland is working closely with Experience Bedfordshire and other local stakeholders in Bedfordshire to support their progress in building capacity and moving towards local visitor economy partnership status. Over the coming months, I will ensure that I keep in touch with my officials about how that progresses. I am sure that if it does not progress to the hon. Member’s satisfaction, he will call for another of these debates and I will have to answer to him.

In the Budget, the Chancellor confirmed the Government’s support to deliver the East West Rail scheme in full, which is good news; the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire referred to it. It will strengthen the region’s thriving life science, technology and innovation sectors, but it will also facilitate journeys for tourists and locals throughout the Bedford area. East West Rail is set to bring billions of pounds-worth of growth to the Oxford-Cambridge region, along with tens of thousands of new homes and jobs. I note that the hon. Member was not quite so happy about the tens of thousands of new homes. For what it is worth, my personal view is that the most important thing when developing large numbers of new homes, which we all know this country needs, is to ensure that we have all the infrastructure to be able to cope with them. If there is going to be a significant expansion of the tourism industry, or the visitor economy industry in Bedfordshire, the people who are going to work in that industry will need houses to live in. All those things have to come together.

The hon. Member referred to the prospect of a major development with Universal UK, which is a new theme park. Obviously, I cannot enter into the specifics of the ongoing discussions—that would be unhelpful to everybody —but I am hopeful that we will get to the significant and dramatic change that it would make, not only to visitor numbers in Bedfordshire but to the whole of the United Kingdom.

That takes me to my final point. Of course we should be ambitious for the whole of the United Kingdom in our tourism strategy, but it would be counterproductive if every single person who came from overseas to this country—and we still do not have the numbers that we reached before covid—decided that they were going to visit only London and did not even get to Bedfordshire, let alone farther-flung parts of the United Kingdom. That is why, in all the work we do on behalf of VisitBritain and VisitEngland, we need to ensure that our tourism strategy is genuinely sustainable. It should take people to see not just the historic sites in the capital city of London, or, for that matter, Bath, Stratford, Oxford, Cambridge or Edinburgh, but the full diversity of what we have to offer in this country.

We are a country with extraordinary things to see. There are enormous adventures to take part in across the whole country. The hon. Member has highlighted some of those in his own constituency. I am keen to ensure that many more people come to the United Kingdom, including Bedfordshire, and, as he said, they do not just pass through but stay the night.

Question put and agreed to.

Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Reform)

Debate between Roger Gale and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am very grateful for your reminding me that I have to speak in opposition to the legislation, but given that the Government themselves oppose the Bill, as the right hon. Member has just pointed out, I presume that the Government will be opposing it as well this afternoon.

While I commend the right hon. Lady for her diligence as a Back Bencher in introducing a series of ten-minute rule Bills over the last year—for instance, last year she introduced the Schools (Gender and Parental Rights) Bill, which fell at the first hurdle because it did not get a Second Reading, with 40 people voting No and 34 voting Aye—we have the same right to oppose her Bill today if we think that it is not appropriate, relevant or necessary. She referred to the fact that she considers this to be—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Other Members may not wish to hear the hon. Gentleman, but I do, and I need to know whether he is in order. If hon. Members want to have private conversations, it would be helpful if they could either have them outside or keep quiet.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question put (Standing Order No. 23).

The House proceeded to a Division.

Data Protection and Digital Information Bill

Debate between Roger Gale and Chris Bryant

Report stage
Wednesday 29th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I, too, would like to thank the Clerks for their help. They are always enormously helpful, especially to Opposition Members, and sometimes to Government Members as well. I would like to commend my close friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), who took the Bill through Committee for our side. I think the Minister suggested that it was rather more fun having her up against him than me, which was very cruel and unkind of him.

We support the Bill, although I suspect that regulatory divergence is a bit of a chimera, and that regulatory convergence in this field will give UK businesses greater stability and certainty, but that is for another day. I also worry about the extensive powers that Ministers are giving themselves, and the suggestion that they will switch off the rules on direct marketing in the run-up to a general election. Then there is new schedule 1. I repeat the offer I have made several times, which is that we stand ready to knock that into far better shape, whether in meetings we have privately or through our colleagues in the House of Lords. I feel ashamed to say it, but I hope the Lords are able to do the line-by-line scrutiny that we have been prevented from doing today.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

Russia’s Grand Strategy

Debate between Roger Gale and Chris Bryant

Thursday 19th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Chris Bryant]

It would undoubtedly add a fifth leg to a four-legged stool, but a four-legged stool is strong enough. I do not want to have to wait for that moment to be able to do this, because Ukraine needs the money now to be able to put food on the table and proceed.

There are two further issues that I ought to knock off in case the Minister says, “Oh, well, yes, this is a very good idea but it is terribly difficult to do, you know, and I can’t think that we can possibly get round to doing it”, which is what Ministers nearly always say. That was not meant to be an impersonation of the Minister currently on the Government Front Bench; it was an impersonation of any normal Minister when they get to the Dispatch Box and hear somebody proposing something difficult or courageous.

First, there is sovereign immunity. State assets are almost always protected from seizure by the concept of sovereign immunity. However, there have been exceptions, such as to satisfy damages awarded by international courts and arbitral tribunal. I would argue that Russia’s continuing refusal to comply with international human rights law—and this goes to the point just made—by attacking civilian housing and infrastructure, and its wilful refusal to follow orders of the International Court of Justice and the United Nations General Assembly are ample grounds for creating such an exemption.

There is also a point about retaliation. Some argue that if we seize their assets, they may seize ours. To be honest, I think it is pretty likely that the vast majority of British assets in the Russian Federation have already been lost, written off or expropriated by the Russian Government.

Finally, some say that countries may choose not to keep their reserves in the United Kingdom if they believe that they can be seized. However, if we severely restrict when reserves can be seized, that concern is minimised. Furthermore, if we acted in concert with our allies to seize the reserves, as we did when we froze them, we could create a powerful disincentive for states to engage in unlawful acts of aggression. I think we should do that. The reserves of an aggressor would never be safe, as there would be no country with a stable currency to protect them.

In the end, we want to ensure that a war of aggression, which has never been formally declared to be a war crime in itself, is seen to be a way in which an aggressor loses their assets. I urge the Government to consider that process carefully so that we can ensure that Russian state assets go to Ukraine as soon as possible.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

Parliamentary Candidates: Barriers for Women

Debate between Roger Gale and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 13th September 2017 Westminster Hall

[Chris Bryant]

I do not think I can, because I am about to be cut off and it would only prevent another woman from being able to speak. It is probably better, therefore, that I shut up.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Actually, Members who give way get injury time. I am afraid that the next speech must be the final one from the Back Benches. If anyone has not got in, they should take note that they can intervene.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Roger Gale and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin), with whose speech I concur.

I had the privilege of chairing Committee proceedings on the Civil Partnership Bill. As has been said, very clear undertakings were given by the then Government and Opposition that that Bill was not the thin end of the wedge nor a paving Bill for same-sex marriage, but an end in itself to right considerable wrongs in the law. That it did, as the European Court of Human Rights has determined. In those respects, civil partnerships are indistinguishable from what we know as marriage.

When I put that point to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities, she said that no Government could bind another. Of course, she is correct. That kicks the bottom out of every undertaking that she has given. It is abundantly plain to most Conservative Members that the product of this Bill will end up before the courts and before the European Court of Human Rights, and that people of faith will find that faith trampled upon. That, to us, is intolerable.

I understand—I will give way to my right hon. Friend if she wishes to correct me—that the Cabinet paper on this matter was entitled “Redefining Marriage”. It is not possible to redefine marriage. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. It has been that historically and it remains so. It is Alice in Wonderland territory—Orwellian almost—for any Government of any political persuasion to try to rewrite the lexicon. It will not do.

A way forward has been suggested, but it has been ignored. I do not subscribe to it myself, but I recognise the merit in the argument. The argument is that if the Government are serious about this measure, they should withdraw the Bill, abolish the Civil Partnership Act 2004, abolish civil marriage and create a civil union Bill that applies to all people, irrespective of their sexuality or relationship. That means that brothers and brothers, sisters and sisters and brothers and sisters would be included as well. That would be a way forward. This is not.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

May I suggest very gently to the hon. Gentleman that what he has just suggested is profoundly offensive not only to a great many people in this country who are in civil partnerships, but to quite a few people on both sides of the House?

[Sir Roger Gale]

The argument is not mine, but that of an eminent lawyer in this House. Its merit is that it would create what I think the hon. Gentleman wants, which is equality. It would create a level playing field and it would leave marriage and faith to those who understand that marriage means faith and that marriage means the union between a man and a woman and nothing else.

[Chris Bryant]

indicated dissent.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Roger Gale and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Temporary Chair]

Order. Ms Primarolo has said that there will be a stand part debate, but she and I are agreed—and I have followed the debate very carefully—that the clause is very narrow in its remit. It sets out how votes are to given, how votes are to be counted and what information is to be given at each stage and no more. I trust that the stand part debate will address those issues and no others.

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

[Chris Bryant]

The most important element of the clause is the fact that it turns an advisory referendum into an implementing referendum. In one sense, it is one of the most important clauses in the Bill. Indeed, if there is a yes vote, it will directly change the voting system and several elements of it. I have a series of questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer.

First, subsection (1) of the clause, on page 5 and on the subject of how votes are to be cast, states:

“A voter votes by marking the ballot paper with…the number 1 opposite the name of the candidate who is the voter’s first preference (or, as the case may be, the only candidate for whom the voter wishes to vote)…if the voter wishes, the number 2 opposite”

and so on. In relation to the discussion we have just had, I wonder whether if somebody marked the ballot paper with a cross against their first preference, which would clearly be an indication that that was the only way that they were choosing to vote, that would not be counted as a valid vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

No, I do not think the Minister was, because he is relying on what happens in the rest of the Bill. Anyway, we are not convinced by the Minister’s presentation of his case on the clause, so we will be pressing the clause to a vote.

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

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Roger Gale)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I beg to move amendment 127, page 6, leave out line 35 and insert—

‘(a) within twelve months of Part 2 of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2010 coming into force in accordance with section 16(2) thereof’.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 341, page 6, line 35, leave out ‘2013’ and insert ‘2018’.

Amendment 342, page 6, line 36, leave out ‘fifth’ and insert ‘tenth’.

Amendment 38, page 6, line 36, at end insert—

‘(3A) After subsection (2) there is inserted—

“(2AA) The boundary review due to be completed by the date set out in subsection (2)(a) above shall not begin until both Houses of Parliament have approved a report from the Electoral Commission certifying that in its opinion sufficient measures have been taken to provide for the registration of eligible voters.”.’.

Amendment 70, in clause 9, page 7, line 32, at end insert—

‘(1A) This rule is subject to an independent assessment of the Boundary Commission as to the potential electorate within any area where the Commission, having consulted—

(a) the Electoral Commission,

(b) the Registration Officer of the local authority or authorities in that area,

(c) such other organisations and individuals whom the Boundary Commission may choose to consult,

determine that the difference between the registered electorate and the assessed numbers eligible to be registered is so significant as to give rise to concern about the number of people to be served within such constituencies as would otherwise be created by rule 2(1) above.’.

Amendment 125, page 10, line 2, leave out from ‘persons’ to end of line 6 and insert

‘who are estimated by the Office of National Statistics to be eligible to vote in United Kingdom parliamentary elections, whether or not they are so registered to vote.’.

Amendment 135, in clause 16, page 13, line 5, at end insert

‘with the exception of Part 2, which will not come into force until—

(a) after the referendum on the determination of powers devolved to the National Assembly for Wales under the terms of the Government of Wales Act 2006; and

(b) the Electoral Commission has reported to the House of Commons, that over 95% of eligible voters in each local authority area are estimated to be on the electoral register.’.

[Chris Bryant]

I presume that once we have been through the amendments, we might then have a clause stand part debate, but maybe you will wish to return to that matter later, Mr Gale, having seen how the debate proceeds.

As the Committee will know, we are now moving into part 2 of the Bill, and into what I believe to be its directly partisan elements. Clause 8 provides for a complete change in how the boundary commissions will proceed, and particularly in the speed with which they will produce their reports. The Government say in subsection (3):

“A Boundary Commission shall submit reports under subsection (1) above periodically…before 1st October 2013, and…before 1st October of every fifth year after that.”

The last part of that presumes that another Bill that is currently going through the House, the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, will not only be carried but remain precisely as it stands. It assumes that we will have five-year Parliaments.

I have pointed out before to the Deputy Prime Minister that the average length of a British Parliament in peacetime since 1832 has been three years and eight months. Notwithstanding the fact that there have been some five-year Parliaments, not least the previous one and the final Parliament of John Major’s Government, for the most part the British political system has tended to move more or less in a three and a half to four and a half-year cycle. It would make far more sense for us to proceed on the basis of a four-year Parliament than a five-year Parliament, especially since I find remarkably few instances of the latter around the world.

The existing process for boundary reviews is that they proceed on a seven-year basis. That is partly because after the Triennial Act 1641 originally provided for three-year Parliaments, there was later a move to seven-year Parliaments. As a result of the Parliament Act 1911, Parliaments were changed to five years, but without a change in the seven-yearly boundary reviews.

The assumption has always been that the boundary commissions in each nation of the UK are independent. That has not changed, except that an overriding provision is to be arrived at before each national commission considers the matter. The Government intend that there should be boundary commission reports on the whole country by 1 October 2013 and subsequently every five years. Our amendment would leave out the words “before 1st October 2013” and insert

“within twelve months of Part 2 of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2010”—

this Bill—

“coming into force in accordance with section 16(2) thereof”,

which of course provides for the entry into force of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Gale)]

Order. The Front-Bench spokesman asked whether there would be a stand part debate. As is generally known, I take a fairly relaxed view about these things, but we can have a stand part debate only once, and it seems to me that we are having it now.

[Chris Bryant]

Although you said it with a wry smile, Mr Gale, you make an eminently sane point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) also makes a good point, which is that we are to do this every five years. In other words, between each election, every Member’s boundaries could be redrawn. That does not provide any political stability to constituents. It is already difficult enough for most members of the public to know who their MP is. It is one of the embarrassing things about the British political system that very few people know who their MP is.

I hate to refer again to the Rhondda, but it is probably easier for people there to know not the name of their MP—I am not asserting that—but that their MP is the MP for Rhondda, because they know that they live in the Rhondda. Most people do not know the name of their constituency, so when the MP for Middle Wallop comes on television, they do not know whether they live in Middle Wallop, Upper Wallop or Nether Wallop. That matters because it is about ensuring that MPs are not deracinated from the politics around them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Not only that, but there has been absolutely no pre-legislative scrutiny. In particular—

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Roger Gale)]

Order. So far as I can see, we have debated most of clause 8 and a chunk of clause 9, and we are now moving on to clause 10. The hon. Gentleman has yet to move the first of a series of amendments to clause 8, many of which other hon. Members wish to speak to. I would be grateful if we returned to the amendment.

[Chris Bryant]

Many thanks, Mr Gale.

I was trying to argue that the Government want to move with precipitate haste towards producing a Boundary Commission report on 1 October 2013, and that that date has been arrived at for the specific purpose of trying to hold together the coalition, in order to drive all of this forward towards the measures relating to five-year Parliaments in the Fixed-Term Parliaments Bill.

An Electoral Commission study published earlier this year found that under-registration was concentrated among specific social groups. That is why I believe that it would be inappropriate to move at the pace on which the Government are insisting, and why the amendments would be more appropriate. The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) has tabled amendment 341, which proposes to leave out the date “2013” from the clause and insert “2018”. That would be a more appropriate timetable, and if he were to press that amendment to a vote, we would want to support him. Mr Gale, I am grateful for the leniency that you have shown in this debate, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Roger Gale and Chris Bryant

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment 264.

Amendment 247, page 17, line 5, at end insert—

‘7A (1) The Electoral Commission shall not issue any explanatory document to persons entitled to vote in the referendum during the relevant period unless the wording, content and design of such document has been agreed by both organisations designated for the purposes of section 108 of the 2000 Act (designation of organisations to whom assistance is available), where such designations have occurred.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1) the “relevant period” is the relevant period for the referendum as defined in section 125 of the 2000 Act (restriction on publication etc. of promotional period by central government etc.).’.

[Chris Bryant]

The amendment deals with the simple issue of the role of the Electoral Commission in relation to the referendum next year. While the Bill provides that the commission should take whatever steps it thinks appropriate to promote public awareness of the referendum and how to vote in it, we believe that that should be subject to the agreement of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. I realise that hon. Members may think that that is some strange committee with no proper function and is just a bunch of MPs who want to interfere in the process, but in fact it is laid down in the 2000 Act. It has three ex-officio members—the Deputy Prime Minister, the Speaker and the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. In addition, a Minister is appointed to the committee by the Prime Minister, in this case the Minister for Housing and Local Government, as well as five other Members—the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) and the hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter). One might call that an eclectic mix, but it represents a broad swathe of opinion on the issue of the referendum as well as many other electoral matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I am aware that those people were appointed because I was in the Chamber when the Whip with the billiard cue came in and announced it. However, they are not all elected. Some are experienced in running elections—certainly Lord Kennedy of Southwark is—and some have stood for office, but none the less, the weathered eye of a sitting, elected politician would be quite useful.

For instance, let us say that the commission decides to use Labour red for everything relating to a yes vote and Conservative blue for everything relating to a no vote. That would be problematic. A politician would spot it instantly, but many professionals who run elections would not, because they are attuned to different things. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle that there is a specific role for the Speaker’s Committee—I can see one member of that committee in the Chamber.

Perhaps the hon. Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe) is used to editors editing her copy, or perhaps it goes straight through and clean into her books, but I do not think that members of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission will want to interfere unnecessarily. They might just bring another valuable perspective to any material that is produced. There is no reason why that should lead to interminable delay, and I think it would be good if members and ex officio members of the committee were to bring their experience to deliberations.

The Minister pointed out that two committee members are also members of the Government, and he is right: there is the Minister for Housing and Local Government who is a Conservative, and there is the Deputy Prime Minister who, at least for the moment, is a Liberal Democrat. Of course, in their personal capacities the two of them will reach different conclusions coming from different sides of the argument, but in their ministerial capacities, they will agree on neutrality. Therefore, in making his observation the Minister adds to my argument, rather than takes away from it.

Finally, I have a bone to pick with the right hon. Member for Wokingham. He referred to the Minister speaking from his ex cathedra pulpit, and I just point out that one is either speaking ex cathedra or from a pulpit. The cathedra is the throne on which the bishop or Pope sits; it is certainly not a pulpit.

I will press my amendment to a Division, although I very much hope that the Minister will agree to it, notwithstanding his earlier complaints.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Roger Gale)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.