European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Charles Walker and Chris Bryant

Committee: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I certainly will bear that in mind, Dame Rosie, and thank you for calling me.

I rise to speak to my amendments 392 to 398. I am not going to read out each one for the benefit of colleagues, because all colleagues can read. The amendments have been covered by various colleagues, from both sides of the House, so I shall stick to discussing the broad principles, but I will of course be happy to answer any questions or criticisms that colleagues may have.

First, may I thank the Procedure Committee for its hard work in producing the report published on 6 November? It is worth pointing out to colleagues how well Select Committees perform in this place. We are obsessed—or all too often we give the impression that we are obsessed—with partisan politics. Of course when people tune in on Wednesday at midday, that is what they see in this place. Our report was agreed unanimously by 15 Members of Parliament, six of whom are Government Members and nine of whom are Opposition Members. It is important to get that on the record. Also important is the fact that we did not let the pursuit of perfection get in the way of sensible compromise.

I can understand that a number of colleagues here today are somewhat disappointed, or remain dissatisfied, with what the Government have brought forward, but, as we have heard from Opposition Front Benchers, Opposition Back Benchers, Government Front Benchers and Government Back Benchers, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), there is broad acceptance that these amendments are a very positive step forward. As Chair of the Committee, I of course endorse that view.

Let us not underestimate the powers that the sifting committee will have. A Select Committee is like water: it gets in everywhere and all too often into places where it is not welcome. So I am certain that with a good and strong chairman who is respected by both sides of the House, a committee comprising experts—committed parliamentarians—will do the right thing by this place.

[Chris Bryant]

The thing is that the hon. Gentleman’s Committee is chaired by a man who is respected by both sides of the House and much loved by many people in all parts of this House, yet his Committee has regularly produced reports that have been completely and utterly ignored by the Government. That is the problem: he is still asking us to trust the Government in the end.

[Mr Walker]

I count the hon. Gentleman as a great friend, and say to him that yes, all too often I have come to this place in a state of high dudgeon, deeply depressed by the performance of my Government’s Front-Bench team, but on this occasion I assure him that the Government have accepted amendments and tabled draft Standing Orders, which are available today for all colleagues to read, so progress has been made. I also remind the hon. Gentleman that the report had the support of every member of the Procedure Committee.

The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) expressed concern about what teeth the sifting committee would have. It is absolutely right that, as he identified, the committee would not be able to insist that the Government change a negative statutory instrument into an affirmative one, because if it could, the committee could just turn around and say, “Right, we want every single negative SI to be affirmative, and that’s the end of it. Be on your way and we’ll see you in a couple of years’ time.” I do not think that would be sensible.

The political cost to my Front-Bench colleagues of going against a sifting committee recommendation would be significant. The committee will have to give a reason why it is in disagreement, the Minister will be summoned to explain his or her Department’s position, and it will be flagged up on the Order Paper if a particular SI has not been agreed between the sifting committee and the Government. That will result in a significant political cost, because what we do most effectively of all in this place is to generate political cost. When a Government fail, or even, indeed, when an Opposition fail, there is a cost to their credibility and reputation. It is important to highlight that.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Charles Walker and Chris Bryant

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Charles Walker]

In the last Parliament, I was totally politically incontinent—in and out of all sorts of Lobbies, voting with the Government, voting against the Government and voting with Labour. I have really tried to make sure that, in this Parliament, I was only in one Lobby—the Government Lobby. I have managed that loyally for the past 18 months, and I am just so disappointed that the Government are not willing to accept Lords amendment 96, because equality of representation is absolutely critical.

I spoke in this place in a previous Parliament about the terrible tragedy of deaths in custody—deaths in detained environments. Let us look specifically at deaths in police custody. If a person dies in police custody, there is obviously a coroner’s inquiry, but there is total inequality of representation at that inquiry. The family of the deceased are up against the state, the police and their legal representation. That legal representation is given to the police without question, and it is funded without question, whereas the families of the deceased, at a time of huge emotional turmoil, have their finances pored over with a fine-toothed comb—it is not just the finances of the parents, but the finances of siblings, aunts and uncles, and even cousins—to see whether the family can bear the cost of their legal representation. That is entirely unfair; it is not just.

The Lords amendment is very sensible in its scope, and I would hope, even at this late stage, that the Government—if for no other reason than to keep me out of a Lobby that I do not really want to be in—might consider accepting it, so that we can all finish the evening on a very happy and unified note.

[Chris Bryant]

I do not think that it is going to be a very unified note by the end of the day, and I think there was an element of irony in the contribution by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker).

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) for their campaign on stalking. The legislation has changed over the years, particularly since 1997, and it is good that this issue is now recognised for the terrible harm that is done to many victims.

I want to talk primarily—this is a bit of a smorgasbord debate—about the Leveson issues and amendment 24, which I wish was not necessary. However, it is necessary, and it has been put on the amendment paper only because their lordships and a large number of us in this House are distrustful of the Government’s intention in relation to what happened over Leveson.

I believe that it is necessary to have the full Leveson—that is not two Leveson inquiries, but one Leveson inquiry, some of which could be done before the criminal investigations were completed, and some of which could not be done until the criminal investigations were completed. That was always the promise. It was never, “We will think about having Leveson 2 once we have come to the end of the criminal investigations; it was always said from the very beginning that there would be one inquiry with two parts and that the second part would happen. In fact, the Prime Minister, in the quote given by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), said those words the day after Leveson 1 had been produced. So Ministers have absolutely no excuse for turning round now and saying, “Oh no, no, we never really intended to proceed with Leveson 2.”

Why does that matter? Why is it important? The truth is that we are talking about corruption in one of the organisations of the state that matters most to our constituents and to the rule of law in this country: the police. I am sure the vast majority of us agree, given the little bits and pieces that we have managed to glean from Leveson 1, that there was a time when the Metropolitan police, to all intents and purposes, were a partially owned subsidiary of News International. Metropolitan police staff went to work for News International. When they had finished working for News International, they went back to work for the Metropolitan police. There was a revolving door. On the very day that the police decided not to continue with the investigation into what had happened at the News of the World, the leading investigator was having dinner with Rebekah Brooks.

Procedure committee

Debate between Charles Walker and Chris Bryant

Monday 18th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I am presenting the third report of the Procedure Committee 2015-16. On private Members’ Bills, the Government are in the last-chance saloon. I adore this place, and I adore taking part in debates, but for so many good, hard-working and committed people here, Fridays are becoming no-go zones. The private Member’s Bill process is in total disrepute, and I hope that we can bring it back from the edge in the months ahead. If we cannot, I see a world where private Members’ Bills as we know them cease to exist. People in this place are doing so much good work in their constituencies and on legislative matters that they will not be willing to give up their time for something that many would say—indeed, as tens of thousands of people are now saying in petitions—is broken.

Let me bring the House’s attention to our report. The current system is designed to fail. We do not recommend getting rid of the ballot system in its entirety, but at the start of each Parliament it creates a scenario in which people put their name into a lottery and if they are lucky—or, indeed, unlucky—their name is drawn out and they are bombarded with worthy causes to take forward as legislation. That is for Opposition Members. Government Back Benchers are bombarded by bright and good ideas from the Whips, and they are seen as another avenue for the Government to get their legislation on the books.

That means that either we have handout Bills, which are worthy but boring, or we have Back-Bench Bills proposed by Opposition Members, a lot of which, to be fair, are frankly ill thought through and perhaps do not deserve to become law. That is how the system is structured and what it creates. Our key recommendation is to give the Backbench Business Committee a role in how private Members’ Bills are conducted in this place.

Our report suggests that up to four Bills—the first four Fridays—should be decided by the Backbench Business Committee. I hope that will mean that groups of Members, or individual Members with a good legislative proposition, can invest a great deal of time—perhaps upwards of a year—working on that proposition, talking to Ministers and respected Members in this place, and building coalitions in and outside Parliament. They can then take that legislative idea before the Backbench Business Committee and say, “This is our work. This is what underpins our legislative idea. It is not a flight of fancy. It has real support in this place and out in the wider community.” The Committee will decide whether a great deal of work underpins that proposition and whether it deserves to be heard in Parliament. That is for the first four Bills. The Committee could decide in one year that no Bills are worthy of one of those sought-after slots, but in other Sessions it might decide that four Bills are worthy of being taken forward.

We recommend that, on the first seven Fridays, the first private Member’s Bill on the Order Paper gets a guaranteed vote on Second Reading. That is important because a lot of people do not turn up, thinking, understandably and with demonstrable proof, that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), while opining often on things of importance that matter to him, might fail to express himself in a measured period of time—to put it generously—but instead orate for vast acres of time. I am afraid that a lot of people, as much as they love him and other hon. Members who specialise in boring the House to tears, find better things to do with their time.

Our proposals, however, would provide protections even for my hon. Friend—I do not want to ruin his Fridays. If a Bill, when it came out of Committee and on to Report, still did not meet with his approval, he could do what he does best. I am hoping, however, that if we allow the first seven Bills at least to get to Committee, the sponsors will have a significant amount of time in which to talk to Ministers, build support and perhaps iron out some of the problems that would otherwise lead the Bill to be talked out.

We suggest reducing the number of Bills in the ballot from 20 to 14 to ensure better and more thorough scrutiny. Of those 14, four, potentially, could be assigned by the Backbench Business Committee and a further 10 through the ballot, but if the Committee decided that nothing was worthy of being introduced by it to the House, there would be 14 in the ballot. There is a proposal to change the name from “private Members’ Bills” to “Back-Bench Bills” but there are people in the House who might not like that, and we cannot force anything on the House; all this can be contested in debate.

We recommend changing the system whereby Members have dozens of presentation Bills on the Order Paper on a Friday to one in which a Member has only one a day. We want to remove the dummy Bills from the Order Paper. I am sure this will find favour with a lot of colleagues. If we remove them, we will not be asked to turn up to Parliament on a Friday to vote on a Bill that is 18th on the Order Paper and has no chance of seeing the light of day. Our report also refers to the possibility of taking a private Member’s Bill or two on a Thursday, but again that is just a suggestion.

We say that not every happy thought that occurs to a Member should become law—that would not be a good thing—but we think that serious legislative propositions should have the chance of progressing. I read closely the speech by the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) last week in Westminster Hall, and I apologise to everyone in the House for not having resolved this matter in the last Parliament. As Chairman of the Procedure Committee, I have to be held accountable for the lack of progress, but I conclude my brief speech by saying that the Government are in the last-chance saloon, and if they do not act now, there are other people in this place who will be less understanding than me, and the change they will bring forward will make the Government’s eyes water, and rightly so.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) says he adores the House, and we adore him—certainly more than we do the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies)—not least because he is quite right: the private Members’ Bills system is, frankly, bust. It is not only open to abuse but is regularly abused. It misleads the public and wastes the House’s time, so we stand four-square with the Committee and will do everything we can to support him. I take just one tiny exception to his report. He says this should start in 2017-18. What is wrong with now? Why can the Government not give us time to debate these changes before the next Session of Parliament so that we can do it in May?

[Mr Walker]

That is an ideal suggestion, and I look to the Government to be revolutionary in their approach to our report and to take it forward as quickly as possible. I am sure the Deputy Leader of the House will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s comments.

Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Charles Walker and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 21st October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The proof of that is that after those events, in the 2005 election, I increased my majority. I can only assume that that proves that it pays to advertise.

My argument is simple, really. Yes, let us have recall; it is an important next stage in the democratic process. We have to open up that little sliver of democracy in the political process, because the leviathan is groaning. We need to change, but we need to ensure that we sort out the financial thing, that this cannot be done vexatiously and that we have a high enough threshold.

[Mr Charles Walker]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I have finished.

Private Members’ Bills

Debate between Charles Walker and Chris Bryant

Monday 2nd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I would go further than the hon. Gentleman and indeed the report, although it contains some useful comments. The present system is not just a farce; it is completely and utterly dishonest. It wastes Members’ time and misleads the public about what we do on a Friday. May I suggest that he avoids the concept of “Back-Bench legislation”? When the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) was on the Front Bench as Secretary of State for Wales, she introduced good legislation. In his terms, she would have been Front Bench, not Back Bench.

[Mr Walker]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I thank him for putting his views so forcefully. He gave excellent evidence to the Committee and I will come on to the points he raises and try to address them.

Some 90% of the Bills now reaching statute that are marked as Back-Bench Bills or private Members’ Bills are, in reality, Government hand-out Bills. Not all Government hand-out Bills are to be despised, but there has to be a better balance.

Immigration (Bulgaria and Romania)

Debate between Charles Walker and Chris Bryant

Monday 22nd April 2013 Westminster Hall

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Christopher Bryant.

[Chris Bryant]

Only my mother calls me Christopher, Mr Walker. However, while reading recently, I was struck by the fact that the person who produced the original report for the then Government claims that, if we read all 85 pages, it was remarkably accurate on probable EU migration from the A8 countries to the UK. Unfortunately, all the different political classes at the time relied only on a headline, which was wholly inaccurate. I suspect that it is possible to map out the numbers rather better than has been done in relation to next year.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Charles Walker and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

No, I do not accept that, because the experience over the rather sad course of this Bill has been that there has been no consultation with the Opposition about a major constitutional change. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said earlier that the system has lasted for 300 years, but I do not think it has been a good system or that it has been perfect for the British constitution, because it has on occasion allowed too much power for a Prime Minister to call a general election at his or her—well, very rarely at her—convenience. In that regard, it is better that we should proceed in a different direction. For us the key issue is whether a term should be four or five years.

[Mr Charles Walker]

No system is perfect, but we have had a fairly dynamic democracy over the past 350 years and by fixing parliamentary terms we will lose some of that dynamism.

[Chris Bryant]

I have sympathy with that argument, but I also think that this is one of the changes towards a fixed-term Parliament that would assist in that and would be another part of the steady progress of parliamentary evolution to which he referred.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Charles Walker and Chris Bryant

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) on providing us with the amendment to debate this evening, and on the manner in which she presented her case. It showed that one can make a forceful case with a considerable degree of humour, and I think that we all enjoyed it. Indeed, it was one of the most enjoyable speeches that I have heard in the House for many a long year.

I was going to say that I was once a 16-year-old, but I am not entirely convinced that I ever really was; I think that I am going back to my childhood now. Several hon. Members referred to the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds, and I know that hon. Members in the Liberal Democrat party are trying to find reasons why they do not have to vote against the Whip this evening, but I honestly say to them, “You’re either in favour of votes at 16 and 17 or you’re not, and if you are you should be voting in favour of votes at 16 and 17 in the next election, which may be held next May.”

Otherwise, it seems to me that the Liberal Democrats really are taking to heart the words of Homer Simpson, when he said:

“Weaselling out of things is important to learn. It’s what separates us from the animals—except the weasels.”

I know that the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) is not a weasel, and I know that none of the honourable people currently sitting on the Liberal Democrat Benches is either, so I hope that they will stick with their manifesto commitment, which was to vote in favour of votes at 16 and 17. The most recent vote on the matter, held before the general election, was a free vote for Labour Members, and the Labour party will have a free vote again this evening.

I happen to support votes at 16 and 17, simply because we ask young people to do many things in modern society, and they are aged in many ways. We now expect them to take on significant levels of debt, and to consider doing so before they go to university, and I honestly believe that if they can make decisions about whether they can parent, about whether they have children, I think that they should also be able to decide who governs the country. That is not the precise proposal in the amendment before us, because it relates merely to the referendum, but I think that general election votes should also apply to that age group.

I am afraid that I find the amendment that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) tabled quite disturbing and unpleasant.

[Mr Charles Walker]

You’re over-egging it.

[Chris Bryant]

I am not over-egging it. Remarkably few people have migrated to my constituency of the Rhondda over the past 80 years, except from Ireland and England, so this is not an issue about who is and is not able to vote in my constituency. However, I rather like the fact that some elements of our law on citizenship are slightly fudged. I like the fact that we still emphasise the bonds of the Commonwealth sufficiently to be able to say that if an Australian works in this country in a bar as part of their gap year, is resident here, pays their taxes and is working, by virtue of their citizenship of Australia they are allowed to vote.

Let us refer to the Republic of Cyprus. Many north London Conservative MPs would reckon that it was not without the Cypriot vote in the general election that they were elected. In addition, if we were to disfranchise the large number of Greek Cypriots in north London and, for that matter, south Wales, we would be saying to them, “Please don’t engage in the British political system,” and doing so at a time when their engagement with the British political system enables us to engage better with the problem in Cyprus, which is still a divided island, with a divided capital city and all the problems about which this Committee knows.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

That is quite interesting, because rather bizarrely I spent a lot of the general election in Spain, trying to help British people get home during the ash cloud problem. Indeed, it was as difficult to get to Spain as it was to get back, so it was a slightly complex mission. I am conscious that about 1 million British people live in Spain, and that about 800,000 live in France, and many exercise a right to vote because they have a second home either in the UK, Spain or wherever. However, when they no longer participate in British society, it is difficult to see why, after 15 years, they should continue to have the right to vote as an overseas voter. In actual fact, the number who use their vote is infinitesimal. That is partly because of the difficulty of voting by post. I suppose that arrangements could be made for voting in embassies, consulates-general and so on around the country, but I am not sure that it is worth the effort. After 15 years, there is a good argument to say that if someone has no direct investment in the future of the United Kingdom, then it does not apply.

[Mr Charles Walker]

I am trying to follow the Minister’s argument. Is he saying that rugby league players from Papua New Guinea playing in the north of England should have a right to vote in a referendum on the future voting system in the United Kingdom?

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman is sitting next to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West—a man who just described himself as an eternal optimist. They are both so optimistic that they are still referring to me as a Minister, which is a delight. Of course, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) knows perfectly well that that is not the argument I am making; I know that because he did that little shrivel-up of his nose that he sometimes does when he is about to make a mischievous contribution in debate.

The basis of my argument is that the bonds of the Commonwealth are important, and I have given a couple of instances of that. We have significant numbers of people from these various communities in the UK. Many of them have been resident for some time, pay taxes and contribute to British political life, and I would like them to be able to remain in the same situation. The situation is not broken, and so, to use an old Conservative principle, I do not see the need to fix it. Particularly in relation to the Republic of Ireland, it would be a step completely in the wrong direction to try to unpick the relationship that we have managed to maintain over the past few years.

Another issue that has been touched on only slightly relates to the overseas territories. We should consider, not directly in relation to this referendum, but certainly in relation to the future, how overseas territories are represented in the context of the British Government. There is an degree to which we still decide matters for the overseas territories. For instance, in recent weeks the Government have decided to overturn the decision on borrowing in the Cayman Islands and allowed the Cayman Islands to remain as a tax haven. I believe that that is entirely a mistake, and that the finances of Cayman are unsustainable. It is therefore important that we find some means of ensuring that the overseas territories have some form of representation.

I want to ask the Minister a couple of other questions about why the Government have introduced the clause precisely as it is. I presume that we will not have a clause stand part debate, so I will mention these points now, if that is all right, Ms Primarolo. I do not understand why peers should be allowed to vote in a referendum on elections to the House of Commons. That seems slightly odd, because all the other provisions relate to those who are able to vote in elections to the House of Commons. Perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten us. In particular—this may be down to my personal stupidity and inability to read legislation—[Interruption.] Undoubtedly it is, yes. I see that the hon. Member for Worthing West (Peter Bottomley) has swapped sides and decided to join the ranks of the Labour party: he is very welcome.

I asked the Minister about clause 2(2) earlier, so by now he might have had some inspiration from the officials. No, I see that he is not going to get any inspiration from them because they are all shaking their heads furiously. The clause makes provision for peers whose only right to vote will be by virtue of being able to do so through the City of London—for instance, as an alderman—and therefore not by virtue of their residence. Precisely how many people does he think that that catches?

Can the Minister tell us about the position of the bishops? As he will know, some bishops arrive in the House of Lords automatically and some arrive on a sort of episcopal escalator that takes them up there once they are among the longest-standing bishops of the Church of England, as long as they are diocesan, not suffragan or area bishops. What happens to bishops once they are no longer taking their ex officio seat? Will they be allowed to vote? What provisions does he think should be made for the future?