Public Health

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I have to say that, although there are many points of merit in what the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has just raised, he has left the House and the public with the impression that he is happy for these restrictions to go through, he just will not vote for them. As for the idea that that is the kind of atmosphere the public want or that they will be encouraged to comply and co-operate when there is disagreement between the main parties on these fundamental issues that cannot be resolved in a sensible way, I think the public will be disappointed with that.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Well, there might be a different interpretation of the events just passed, might there not, which is that a lot of us are very concerned that the Prime Minister does not give the full story to the House and to the nation. The truth is that we are almost certainly going to see another lockdown in January—a full lockdown across the whole of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] I hear the Prime Minister say, “It is not what we want.” Nobody wants any of this—of course we do not—but we have to be honest and straightforward with the British people, and these measures today are not sufficient to the day.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I did not hear my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister make the promise that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that he made. I think my right hon. Friend is being perfectly honest with the House on this. I think it is very difficult, and I will come to that point, but I want to concentrate on what we agree about.

We all agree that we want to keep the R rate below 1, while minimising the restrictions on people’s lives and limiting the economic damage. If the R rate rises above 1, it becomes much too difficult to predict or control. It has a multiplier effect, even if the R rate remains constant. It is perfectly legitimate for colleagues on the Conservative Benches to press the Government for more clarity about why the Government believe the NHS is at risk of being overwhelmed. Data for much of the country does not suggest that at the moment, but it is not uncommon for hospitals to become overrun during the winter months, even without the addition of covid. It is also reasonable for Government to anticipate that the rising rate of covid infections would lead to exactly that in some areas, or much worse, unless we can keep R around or below 1; and that is all that these measures can be expected to achieve.

It is right to press the Government for more analysis of the economic impact of these measures, but maybe the Government were wrong to raise the expectation that they could provide that degree of certainty where so much uncertainty exists. Equally, it must be agreed that it is impossible to predict the economic consequences of a rapid spread of the virus. I understand the frustration of representing a low-virus constituency included in a tier 2 area, and the need to provide the right support to business that is being badly hit, but such frustrations are not about alternatives to the fundamentals of this policy, which I believe the Opposition are trying to avoid.

The real question—it is also a legitimate question—is will the tiers be enough. I hope that tier 2 will keep Essex below the R of 1, but there is doubt: tier 2 did not work before. We must look upon this period as a further period of transition to when vaccines begin to become available. We should look ahead at the challenges that the vaccine programmes will present, and give thought to how reassurance is provided that the vaccine that each person is invited to accept is right for that person. In the meantime, the challenge is to ensure that we can move down the tiers, and not just into tier 1, but to remain in tier 1, even if it takes time for the vaccines to become effective and to be rolled out at scale. That will depend on how we all behave, the example that we set, and what we do to encourage confidence and co-operation with test and trace operations.

There is much to ask the Government that time does not allow today—about how to improve trace and isolate operations, particularly at local level, and about how the community volunteer hubs could help support people who should isolate. That is vital work now.

The last thing I want is to vote for these restrictions today, but until there are better alternatives we have no alternative, and should support them. I am sorry that Her Majesty’s Opposition are trying to avoid that truth. The Government have also the opportunity to learn by continuing to listen, and to gain public confidence from that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I start from the fundamental principle that we do need restrictions across the country in some shape or form. I remember earlier in the year being howled at by various lunatic journalists who told me angrily that the idea that we would ever get to 200 deaths a day this autumn was preposterous and based on false science. Well, we have seen 400, 500 and, on occasion, 600 deaths a day, so we have to take these matters seriously.

As Advent always leads to Christmas, and as Christmas always leads to Epiphany, so lower restrictions always lead to higher transmission rates, and higher transmission rates always lead to problems for the local NHS. That is true in every country in the world; there is no way of avoiding it. Government Members would be daft to listen to the blandishments that they have heard from the Prime Minister over the last couple of days. I would bet that not a single area goes from tier 2 to tier 1 before Christmas, simply because tier 2 does not work—it does not bring the numbers down. There might be some areas that go from tier 3 to tier 2, but there will not be any that go from tier 2 to tier 1, and the Government know it.

There will not be any more nuanced rules and granularity when it comes to the second week of December or the end of February. One thing that has been really difficult for businesses in the hospitality industry is that they are endlessly being told to switch on and switch off. Someone who runs a pub buys in the beer and then has to pour it all down the drain. Incidentally, they are not allowed to pour it down the drain any more. They have to make special provision for it, and that does not mean bringing all their friends round and drinking it. There is a real problem in the brewing industry, and every time we switch on and switch off, it makes this all the more difficult.

I say to the Prime Minister: stop with the metaphors—I am sick and tired of them—and no more over-promising, because when he under-delivers on those promises, it means that the nation stops believing in him. Let us also not be parochial. I am sorry to say to the hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) that he was being precisely nimbyish. He was saying that he does not want Leicester in his backyard—that is nimbyism. The truth is that we are all in this together, and we have to take this forward as a national enterprise, not a parochial one.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Steve Brine.

Covid-19: Winter Plan

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

May I make a plea to all Members to be as brief as the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne)? After two hours, we are not even halfway through the number of people who are hoping to ask a question. I remind people that they are not making speeches; they are asking questions—brief questions—and they should not read them. I am quite sure that I can rely on the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

You always say that before you call me, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Laughter.] I see you have united the House in that plea.

May I make a plea to the Prime Minister? I have asked him about this before this year. We had terrible flooding in the Rhondda. It led to a landslide from a coal tip, which could all too easily have landed on top of people’s houses, God forbid, as it has elsewhere in Wales in the past. We need £100 million. So far, the Prime Minister has promised one Member of this House to passport the money, in February. He promised me in June that this was going to be sorted. We still have seen only £2 million of the £100 million we need. Please, please, please, just say now we are going to get that money on Wednesday.

[The Prime Minister]

This is a matter for the Welsh Labour Government in Wales to deal with, but I understand the fundamental inability of the Welsh Labour Government to deal with so many matters that concern the people of Rhondda, and we will do what we can to address the hon. Gentleman’s point.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie]

It is an unusual pleasure to speak so early in a debate.

I am delighted to stand to support Government clauses 46 and 47 and to speak against the amendments in the name of the official Opposition and the Scottish national party and the other amendments. I have only been in the House for three years—it sometimes feels like 30, given what we have been through since 2017—but these amendments and the arguments, especially those from the SNP, against the clauses, are among the most remarkable things I have seen, despite what we have been through in the last three years. The governing party of one of the devolved nations in this country is tabling amendments and using arguments that would prevent more money being spent in that nation. It is frankly astounding.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Bowie]

I have only just started, but as it is the hon. Member, yes, of course.

[Chris Bryant]

I agree with the hon. Member about nationalism and separatism and all that, but we are a bit cynical and sceptical about offers from the Government at the moment. I have been trying to get £130 million outside the envelope for the flooding earlier this year in the Rhondda, but so far we have not seen a penny, not even for the coal tip that collapsed into the river at Tylorstown, which needs 60,000 tonnes removing. We still have not seen the £1.2 million. That is a Westminster responsibility.

[Andrew Bowie]

I am reliably informed by a former Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), that that is a devolved responsibility, which is one reason why the hon. Member should vote for the Bill next week and against the Opposition amendments this evening.

Not only are these arguments incredible; they are also based on a complete falsehood: that the powers in the Bill, which will allow the UK Government to spend directly on specific projects in Scotland—I will contain my remarks to Scotland for obvious reasons—for the first time in 20 years, will somehow undermine devolution. This is not true.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns]

I will come on to explain in further detail specific cases as to why the UK Government need the power in these clauses to intervene to support those communities that I want to support; I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not seem to want the UK Government to have the capacity to step in.

The current arrangements are confusing and messy, and could easily end up in the courts. Out of respect for devolution, Whitehall has been reluctant to be as assertive in pursuing some policies as the political and economic situations require. Constituents do not understand these arrangements, and businesses are often frustrated by the complexity and the perceived lack of interest in the issues and challenges they face. I said on Second Reading that for someone who is unemployed and living in one of the poorest communities, in a run-down town or village, perhaps with poor qualification levels or few training opportunities, UK Government Ministers’ answer to any call for help is, as it stands, simply to point them to the Welsh Assembly or to a Welsh Government Minister. Someone living in one of those communities in those circumstances does not care where the help comes from. They want the Government to be able to offer hope and opportunity, to play a part in bringing about change and to be relevant to those challenges that those individuals and communities face by helping to fix them.

[Chris Bryant]

I completely agree that my constituents in the Rhondda, which is one of the poorer communities in Wales, in the UK and in the whole of the European Union, would not care less where the money came from if they were seeking support, be it for a new youth service, more police officers, a new health centre or anything else. But for that to be effective, it has to be co-ordinated with other local services. A Government could not suddenly decide to build something in the Rhondda without planning permission from the local authority and without other permissions from the Assembly. This is why some of us are sceptical that the Government need these powers or that they are really serious about them. The Coal Authority is an agency of the Westminster Government, not of the Welsh Government, yet we are still waiting for our £1.2 million. If he can tell me a reason why the Government cannot give us the £1.2 million now, I would be delighted to hear it.

[Alun Cairns]

I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman. In relation to the Coal Authority, he is aware—this highlights the point that I made about the complexity of the current legislation—that land reclamation is a devolved function. Therefore, the Coal Authority is an agency of the UK Government, but the legislative responsibility falls to the Welsh Government. That highlights the complexity of the situation and may well be—I do not know because I have not looked at it in close enough detail—one of the root causes of why that community faces such a challenge.

The hon. Gentleman also highlighted flooding as a challenge. Flooding is a devolved responsibility. Therefore, when he calls on Environment Ministers to support funding projects in his constituency, he knows full well that the powers allowed by the current legislative framework to directly support such projects do not exist. Therefore, those calls, all too often, will fall on Ministers who do not have the power to act in those circumstances.

[Chris Bryant]

I think I am agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman in some small measure, which is obviously hurtful for me. He is of course right that flooding in Wales is the responsibility of the Welsh Government. However, there comes a time, if we want to reinforce the Union, when the Westminster Government have to accept that there have been specific events that fall outside the normal Barnett formula—outside the normal envelope. That is why I have repeatedly asked—and the Prime Minister promised this at the Dispatch Box—that we will get the money for the floods that happened excessively in Wales, and particularly in Rhondda, rather than anywhere else in the UK earlier this year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman has just said that Storm Dennis should be recognised as a UK responsibility, yet we have not had a single penny in Wales from the Westminster Government in relation to Storm Dennis. He also referred to the shared prosperity fund. That does not exist. The Government have not yet even produced a consultation document on it. We do not know what it will look like at all. We would look on these clauses with far more interested eyes if we had all that in the Bill.

[Marco Longhi]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the intervention, but I refer him back to answers previously given by more learned colleagues than myself on those specific points.

I hold Scotland close in my heart, with many fond memories of holidays—and how could I not mention the excellent whisky, as I think about Laphroaig and the Macallan still in my cupboard? It is a worldwide export from the United Kingdom. We are our own biggest trading market between whole nations, and I want to see Scottish businesses and businesses in my constituency of Dudley North continue to have unfettered access to each other’s markets—something that simply would not happen, were the SNP to have their own agenda, with their separatist approach.

So far, all we have seen and heard from Opposition SNP Members is this damaging rhetoric that champions separation instead of growth and jobs through trading in our Union. They criticise this Government and, by default, ordinary British people who voted to leave for, as was stated yesterday, unpicking 60 years of European jurisprudence; yet they want to unpick over 300 years of a Union much closer to home that has proven to work for everybody. For all their claims to be defending the Scottish people and devolved powers in Scotland, it seems utterly bizarre and ironic that the SNP would want to return those powers back to Brussels, because not only will sovereignty be lost, but as the former SNP Minister Alex Neil admitted, there would have to be a customs barrier between Scotland and the UK, and no doubt a separate currency. I cannot for the life of me understand why SNP Members would actively advocate to suppress their whole nation and damage their local economy.

The Bill strengthens the Union, so it is no surprise they seek to oppose it, but they should all be held to account for not wanting to stand up for all the British jobs that the Bill would support and protect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Thank you, Mr Evans. Of course I will focus the majority of my remarks on amendment 22, but I hope you will permit me a little latitude to work around our amendment. [Interruption.] Well, I hope Mr Evans will; I do not really care about the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) as he is not in the Chair, so I will listen to you, Mr Evans. I say that with all affection and kind regards for the hon. Gentleman.

[Chris Bryant]

That is a fib.

[Gavin Robinson]

It is, no doubt about it.

I have been here for the guts of four hours during this debate, which has been going for four hours and 45 minutes, and at times I felt I had entered a parallel universe. For Government Members, this Bill is an important and necessary step: it is a safety net; it respects the internal market of the UK; and it is something prudent and expedient to do in the circumstances in which we find ourselves in the current negotiations. From Opposition Members I hear that it is the most egregious and outrageous power grab, driving a coach and horses through everywhere—England, Scotland and Wales. This coach and horses is very tired. Yet I find it difficult to get Members on both sides to focus on some of the fundamentals that affect us in Northern Ireland.

I have heard Members from across the Chamber say in all sincerity that they believe there are elements in this Bill that protect the single market of the United Kingdom, that talk about the customs union of the UK. Let us be under no illusion: the single market of the UK, as we know it, was gifted away at the time this House passed the withdrawal agreement and the associated Northern Ireland protocol. Let us reflect on the financial assistance provisions in this Bill and clause 46 in particular. When I raise this with the Government, they say clearly that this is a power that extends right throughout the UK. That in itself is true, but there is no recognition in this debate, save in the contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), that that unrestricted power to offer financial assistance is hugely curtailed. It is curtailed by article 10 of the Northern Ireland protocol associated with the withdrawal agreement.

Article 10 says that we in Northern Ireland remain under the single market regime of the EU; that the state aid rules, no matter what this financial assistance provision says, will apply to Northern Ireland; and that any decision on financial assistance from this Government to businesses in Northern Ireland that fall within the EU state aid rules will not only be subject to challenge by EU member states, but will bring with it the full jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. I struggle when I hear Members in this House say that this Bill protects the integrity of the UK single market—it does not. That is why I ask that people sincerely look at amendment 22, because it would allow the people of Northern Ireland to benefit and would mean that the provisions on direct and indirect discrimination actually mean something to businesses in Northern Ireland. We will spend a lot of time on Monday considering the things we can do that will appropriately protect businesses in Northern Ireland to trade with their biggest market in Great Britain, but we also need Members of this House to consider the implications of the regime passed at the start of this year, the restrictions that there will be on trade from GB to NI, and the costs associated with the regimes in place through GB and NI. I know that those negotiations have not concluded and that we do not have a full picture of how that will be, but here we are, three and a half months from the end of the transition period, and yet businesses in Northern Ireland have no clarity as to how they are going to trade with their main market.

I struggle fundamentally with the arguments advanced by some Members about the Good Friday agreement. I listened very carefully to the contributions of the hon. Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), neither of whom are here now, and I make no criticism of that at this stage. Throughout the course of Brexit, there have been claims ad nauseam—in this Chamber, within the Northern Ireland political context, in the United States of America, which has been referred to today, and elsewhere—that taking sovereign decisions within a political entity is in some way injurious to peace in Northern Ireland. That is wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sally-Ann Hart]

No.

Faced with a choice of supporting our Union or the European Union, I know whose side I am on; do you?

[Chris Bryant]

There is nothing like a dame, Dame Rosie.

This debate today! I remember sitting in the theatre a few years ago—do you remember the theatre?—and there was a couple in front of me who had had a terrible row. The woman turned to the man and said, just as the curtain was coming up, “The worst of it is that you’re so bloody ‘paytronising’.” and he kissed her on the forehead and said, “It’s ‘patronising’, dear.” If I am honest, I feel we have all patronised each other to death today. Actually, there are lots of areas where there could be some common ground, if we chose to try to find it, which is what I shall try to do in my speech.

Let me start with principles, because they should inform all the legislation that we support. The first principle must surely be—I say this as a proud socialist; I have never run away from the word “socialist”, even when Tony, whom I much admired, was leader of the Labour party—that any country performs best when it is most equal. When it is most equal, a country is happier, more successful economically and a better country to live in.

Secondly, decisions about policies and, for that matter, about funding are best made closest to the people that they most directly affect. I was a Government Minister for around 20 minutes, and my experience was that it is all very well coming up with all these grand ideas, sitting in an office in Westminster, but if they cannot be delivered because they do not fit alongside other policies, is just a waste of time—someone would just be wasting their own energy dreaming up legislation, and although they might buff their fingernails at the end of the day, they would not have actually got their hands dirty and achieved anything.

Thirdly, no single policy area stands alone. I have tried to do a lot of work on acquired brain injury over the past few years; it is an issue that affects every single Government Department—the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Ministry of Justice and so many other policy areas, including the Treasury, of course. My experience is that unless we manage to devise policies that fit with other policies, we are not going to achieve what we could possibly achieve. Perhaps that is just because I believe that we achieve far more by our common endeavour than we do by going it alone.

All that is why I am afraid to say to the people with whom I am often in the same Lobby, but not so much this evening, that I believe in the Union. I believe that Wales is stronger in the Union and—I hate to say this to the people I disagree with in many ways—but I am also still a Unionist when it comes to the European Union. I know that I am not meant to raise that decision anymore, and that that battle is meant to be done, but—[Interruption.] Yes, I did not get the memo, but I will doubtless be sent it later.

I say all these things because I represent one of the poorest constituencies in the UK, one of the poorest constituencies in Wales and one of the poorest constituencies in the whole European Union. I was proud when we kept on getting structural funds in Wales. One of the things that I thought was clever about structural funds was that the funding had to be matched. It always had to sit alongside decisions made locally and money that was raised locally, so there was a degree of devolved decision in there.

I hate to say this, Dame Rosie, but I have a list of things that the Rhonda needs. We need to finish the Rhondda Fach relief road. I would like to improve the railway so that people can get into work much quicker, with bigger trains and proper toilets. I would like to unblock Stag Square in Treorchy and, for that matter, the roundabout outside Asda. I would like to rebuild the powerhouse in Tonypandy, which is falling apart. I would like proper cycle routes up both valleys. I would like a fully funded youth service which, unfortunately, has been cut in pretty much every part of the UK over the past 10 years.

This year has been—there is a four-letter word for it, but I am not allowed to use it—not very good in the Rhondda. We have had terrible flooding. A quarter of all the floods in the whole of the UK were just in my constituency, and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) has experienced similar. One of the culverts will cost £300,000 to be mended, and about £140 million-worth of work needs to be done to ensure that people’s homes are safe. I do not think that that should be met within the normal envelope of the Barnett formula, because I think that is part of us being a Union of four nations. I have repeatedly asked the Prime Minister for that money, and the Prime Minister has actually said at the Dispatch Box that we will get it, but it has not come and, of course, that makes me worried, because if Rhondda Cynon Taff has to do that work and has to find the money from elsewhere, there is a real danger that lots of other budgets will be slashed to the bone, and, if I am honest, things are already pretty threadbare—if I am not mixing my metaphors.

The one issue that I have had rows with the former Welsh Secretary about—he is not here—is that Wales and many mining constituencies across the UK have former coal tips. They are the responsibility of the Coal Authority and, of course, the problems that stem from them today predate devolution, because nearly all of them were closed long before devolution came to pass—certainly all the ones in the Rhondda. I gather that the Coal Authority, which is an agency of the Westminster Government under the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, has produced a new report, or is in the process of doing so, which is likely to suggest that a lot of those tips need a lot of investment to be made safe.

Just like those in Nottingham or Durham or wherever else in the UK, including in Scotland for that matter, I think that the coal tips in the Rhondda are a UK responsibility—a moral responsibility, even if not a legal responsibility—and we need to ensure that they are safe. A tip in Tylorstown collapsed in the floods earlier this year, and 60,000 tonnes of material needs to be moved, which is a phenomenal job of work for a relatively small local authority to undertake. It is doing it because it has to be done, otherwise there is a real danger of further slippage if there is much more serious flooding later this year. However, we still have not had the guarantee from the Westminster Government that the £1.2 million, which would seem a tiny amount to most people, will come our way.

Now, I actually think that clause 46 is both unnecessary and impotent. It is unnecessary because the Government could do every single thing in clause 46 without it. I do not think it is needed at all, but, equally importantly, I think it is impotent. Let us say for the sake of argument that the Government decided, having heard my pleas for a youth service in the Rhondda and to do up the powerhouse in Tonypandy, that they were going to spend money on a brand-new youth service facility in Tonypandy in the powerhouse. “Hurrah!”, I would go. They would not be able to do it without the local authority agreeing to it because they would have to get planning permission and work with the transport facilities. They would have to make sure that people were available to work in it and that it was sustainable, so it would be impossible to implement that simply on the basis of clause 46. I say gently to some of my colleagues that I think they have slightly over-egged the argument that suddenly Westminster will descend and plant things in constituencies, because I do not think it will be able to. I think this is very poorly drafted legislation, as it happens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I know that the hon. Member has spoken a bit. I would normally give way, but I am not going to on this occasion.

There would be a better process available. We have been waiting for a very long time for the shared prosperity fund structure to be announced. That should have been here long before we got to this point. I have a terrible feeling that what the Government will introduce is something that will either try to bypass the Welsh Government or the Scottish Government, or will try to set up a competition between different local authorities. I do not think that that will mean that the money goes where it is most needed and where it can be most effective. I urge the Government to think hard about introducing a shared prosperity fund and the outline of that as soon as possible.

Of course, money should be spent in relation to need—it is a very old principle for all of us Opposition Members: from each according to his ability, to each according to his or her need—and that is all I really want. I am never going to say no to money for the Rhondda. I will constantly ask for it and I am very hopeful that the Minister, when she answers, is going to say, “Yes, Chris—or yes, Dame Rosie, Chris can have his money for the flooding, the tips and the youth service.” Incidentally, as chair of the Rhondda arts festival in Treorchy, RAFT, I declare my interest—I have no financial interest; I am not remunerated for it. We would also quite like some money for that as well.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and I thank him for his courtesy in rejecting an intervention and giving me and the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme a few moments at the end of this debate.

This debate is focused on part 6 and I believe that the commitments that we are making demonstrate the seriousness of the Government’s intent to deliver on the promises of the Vote Leave campaign. We will match what happened with the EU structural funds in each home nation through the new UK shared prosperity fund, and we will continue to co-operate across the UK to overcome coronavirus together. Coronavirus has demonstrated the true value of the Union, with the devolved Governments working together with Westminster to help people and businesses through the pandemic. The Bill will facilitate more of that joint working to the benefit of everyone across the UK.

We have heard a lot today and yesterday about power grabs. If there is a power grab, it is from Brussels, because having won our independence referendum, we are quite rightly restoring the powers that used to reside in this place. The UK’s internal market is centuries old and has never needed to be recognised in statute in this way before. However, that is necessary now to provide legal certainty to businesses and consumers across all four home nations as we exit the internal market of the EU.

This Bill and these clauses are needed to protect jobs and prosperity across the United Kingdom and to prevent new burdens and new barriers restricting the historical unfettered right to trade. In fact, it is SNP Members who are trying to grab more and new powers for the Scottish Government through these amendments. At the time of the Scotland Act 1998, which created the Scottish Parliament, it was never envisaged that the devolved Assemblies would be endowed with the powers that they now seek. All the talk we have heard of the Sewel convention and the rest of it is, therefore, anachronistic, because the convention was after the fact of our being in the internal market. We are restoring the situation that existed prior to the EU. These powers were never promised to Scotland at the time, and we have heard many arguments about that this evening. I understand why they seek these powers—they know they are a necessary part of independence—but I remind them that the Scottish people have already had their say on that. Indeed, I think that this is once again an attempt by the SNP, regrettably, to disrupt the Bills that seek to legislate in the national interest and make this debate about independence, which is a pity.

To wrap up, I will quote my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), who spoke earlier: when did devolution become about stopping this place from acting in the best interests of the whole UK? This is the right place. Westminster has Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish representation in it. This is the right forum for these discussions and these issues. I commend these clauses to the House and urge hon. Members to reject the Opposition amendments this evening.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Chris Bryant Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 14th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

No, not in the least. My right hon. and learned Friend can consult the Attorney General’s position on that. After all, what this Bill is simply seeking to do is insure and protect this country against the EU’s proven willingness—that is the crucial point—to use this delicately balanced protocol in ways for which it was never intended.

The Bill includes our first step to protect our country against such a contingency by creating a legal safety net taking powers in reserve, whereby Ministers can guarantee the integrity of our United Kingdom. I understand how some people will feel unease over the use of these powers, and I share that sentiment. I say to my right hon. and learned Friend that I have absolutely no desire to use these measures. They are an insurance policy, and if we reach agreement with our European friends, which I still believe is possible, they will never be invoked. Of course, it is the case that the passing of this Bill does not constitute the exercising of these powers.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Hang on!

[The Prime Minister]

If the powers were ever needed, Ministers would return to this House with a statutory instrument on which a vote—perhaps this is the question to which the hon. Gentleman is awaiting an answer—would be held. We would simultaneously pursue every possible redress—to get back to the point I was making to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill)—under international law, as provided for in the protocol.

In addition to our steps in domestic law, if we had to make clear that we believed the EU was engaged in a material breach of its duties of good faith, as required and provided for under the withdrawal agreement and the Vienna convention on the law of treaties, we would seek an arbitration panel and consider safeguards under article 16 of the protocol.

It is a question not of if we meet our obligations, but of how we fulfil them. We must do so in a way that satisfies the fundamental purpose of the protocol, the Belfast Good Friday agreement and the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. We will work with the EU on all of these issues. Even if we have to use these powers, we will continue to engage with the joint committee so that any dispute is resolved as quickly and as amicably as possible, reconciling the integrity of the EU single market with Northern Ireland’s place in the UK’s customs territory.

What we cannot do now is tolerate a situation where our EU counterparts seriously believe that they have the power to break up our country. If that is what hon. Members on the Opposition Benches want them to have, then I am afraid that they are grievously mistaken. That illusion must be decently dispatched, and that is why these reserve powers are enshrined in the Bill.

In addition, the Bill will help deliver the single biggest transfer of powers to the devolved Administrations since their creation, covering a total of 160 different policy areas. Each devolved Administration will also be fully and equally involved in the oversight of the UK’s internal market through a new independent body, the Office for the Internal Market. The Bill will maintain our common cause of high standards, where we already go beyond the EU in areas ranging from health and safety to consumer and environmental protections.

[Chris Bryant]

May I take the Prime Minister back to the question asked by the former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright)? It seems to me quintessential to the way we do our business that Ministers abide by the law. Indeed, the Justice Secretary is required by law to swear that he will uphold the rule of law. How, therefore, can the Prime Minister seriously advance a piece of legislation that says:

“regulations…are not to be regarded as unlawful on the grounds of any incompatibility or inconsistency with relevant international or domestic law”.

That is just gobbledegook, isn’t it? It is complete and utter nonsense.

[The Prime Minister]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening, but I made it very clear that we do not relish the prospect of having to use these powers at all. We hope very much, as I said, that the EU will be reasonable, but any democratically elected Government of this country—indeed, I would say any MP representing the people of this country—must be obliged to do whatever he or she can to uphold the territorial integrity of this country. That is what we are doing. Furthermore, instead of UK taxpayers’ money being disbursed by the EU, this Bill, which is an excellent Bill, will allow the Government to invest billions of pounds across the whole of the UK to level up.

A year ago, this Parliament was deadlocked, exasperating the British people by its failure to fulfil their democratic wishes and, worst of all, by undermining our negotiators, as the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) will recall. Effectively, Parliament told the EU that if it played hardball, this House would oblige it by weakening our country’s hand and legally forbid our representatives from walking away from the negotiating table. I hope that this House will never make that mistake again. Instead, let us seize the opportunity presented by this Bill and send a message of unity and resolve. Let us say together to our European friends that we want a great future relationship and a fantastic free trade deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

In the limited time that, unfortunately, is available to us, I want to focus on the protection of the UK market and on the enhanced powers that this Bill will give to UK Ministers to act in UK nations. Without this Bill, the way in which businesses trade and interact could be at risk. There is a realistic potential that the marketplace could become chaotic. We all recognise—

[Chris Bryant]

Why?

[Alun Cairns]

If the hon. Member gives me a moment, I will continue the argument and he can make an intervention later if he wishes.

We all recognise the status of the EU single market, which is something many of us will have championed and questioned in equal measure over the years. Rarely have we commented, however, on the UK market, yet the single UK market is more important and directly relevant to the businesses in each and every constituency across the country. It gives us the right to trade freely and seamlessly in all parts of the UK. It sets minimum standards for products and services—a common rulebook for tradespeople to work from. It allows for the mobility and flexibility of labour, protects against unfair subsidies and enables the recognition of qualifications, confirming free and fair competition and opportunity wherever people are based in the United Kingdom. It is so important to our prosperity and so obvious that until now many people will have taken it for granted, which is why we need to act in this Bill.

Over the last six months, we have seen that the agendas of each Administration around the UK are not always in line, and therefore the potential to create chaos in the marketplace exists. Protecting the interests of businesses and consumers in all parts of the country must be our priority, and that is exactly what the Bill does. It does so in a way that also respects and supports devolution by enhancing the devolved Administrations by extending their powers still further.

I am particularly encouraged and grateful that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has included clause 46 in part 6. It is particularly welcome: it enhances the powers of UK Ministers to act and to be relevant in UK nations. That is essential for the future of the Union, and to my mind it is the start of the Union fightback. It shows that Whitehall now understands the changing nature of our make-up as a United Kingdom.

Since devolution, UK Ministers have been prevented from acting directly in support of businesses, charities or authorities in UK nations. UK-scale investment projects have always been difficult to achieve since devolution. Every Secretary of State has been frustrated by that, partly because of the devolved settlement and the limitations that it has put in place. After all, for someone who is unemployed and living in one of the poorest communities, which may have substandard education and limited training opportunities, in a run-down town or village, at this point the UK Government’s answer to calls for help would have to be, “You need to contact your Assembly Member or the Welsh Government Minister.”

[Chris Bryant]

I am sorry, but I have been asking for money to make good the problems that we have had with flooding in the Rhondda all this year; I have not had a single penny out of the Westminster Government for it. I have been calling for the work that needs to be done in the Rhondda to take away the 60,000 tonnes of material that has fallen into the river from tips, which are a responsibility of the UK Government, to be funded by the UK Government; I have not seen a penny. I am not going to listen to all this nonsense of pretending that they are going to send us money—it is a whole load of tosh.

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Member has made my point. He recognises that the areas of policy that he is talking about are devolved: the capacity of the UK Government to act in those spaces does not exist, as it stands. He recognises that the devolved settlement already gives Wales, or the Welsh Government, £120 for every £100 spent in England, so the answer that I might suggest is: I am sorry, but the hon. Member will have to contact the Welsh Government Minister to act in his constituency.

When people live in the circumstances that I have described, they do not care where the help comes from; they just want the Government to give hope and opportunity, and to play a part in bringing about change. The Bill allows for exactly that. I have long argued that the future of any nation would come under pressure if a wide wealth gap continued to persist between nations and regions. The Prime Minister’s levelling up agenda recognises that, and this Bill empowers that levelling up agenda in Scotland, in Northern Ireland and in Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

This law is a scoundrel’s charter. I was taught as a child that it was the quintessence of Britishness and the quintessence of honour that my word was my bond—that what I had signed up to I was pledged to and I would stand by. We, the United Kingdom, Her Majesty’s Ministers on behalf of the whole nation, and this Parliament—the newly elected Parliament—signed this into law. We signed on the dotted line. The Prime Minister called it a “fantastic moment”. He said it was a great, great deal. The Tory manifesto was absolutely clear that it was a wonderful ready-made deal for the United Kingdom. Now the Government intend to trail our honour through the mud, and I will do everything I possibly can to prevent that.

If this goes through in the way that it is drafted at the moment, we will become the scoundrels of international law. The Government have even put their bad faith into the Bill. With the single word, “notwithstanding”, they have made Government Ministers do contortions. Who ever thought that we would hear a Government Minister say that the Bill breaks international law in a “specific and limited way” as if that is fine—some kind of Cummings get-out clause? Even worse, the Justice Secretary said, “I’ll quit if the rule of law is broken in an unacceptable way.” So now, according to the Justice Secretary, there is an acceptable way for somebody to break the law—again, the Cummings rule.

Clause 45 actually uses the word “notwithstanding”. I thought I might hear Vladimir Putin say, “notwithstanding the Budapest accord, which guarantees the territorial integrity of Ukraine”, or President Xi say, “notwithstanding the Sino-British joint declaration”. I never thought that I would see in a British Bill signed off by British Government Ministers, who are meant to respect the rule of law, a line that says:

“notwithstanding any relevant international or domestic law with which they may be incompatible or inconsistent”.

The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said, “It’s just a mistake; we should say it’s a mistake.” Well, why did everybody vote for it? What honour can you possibly have if you think that this is just a mistake?

There is another fib at the heart of the Bill, which is that it purports to say that there is going to be lots of extra money for constituents like mine in the devolved areas of the country. I do not think we will get a single extra penny, because we have been waiting for the shared prosperity fund for weeks and months and years, and not a single word has yet been published about it.

The truth is that we need the rule of law in this country; we rely on international treaties. It guarantees contracts. It makes us honest and protects us from overbearing government. I say to the Government: if you try to sack members of your own party because they have a conscience, you are on the route to dictatorship.

Civil Service Appointments

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I quite agree with my hon. Friend. One of the surprising things about the tone taken by some Members on the Opposition Benches is the idea that someone who has dedicated their life to public service, such as David Frost, should be barred from office.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

If I am honest, I do not really care who the Prime Minister appoints as his National Security Adviser. It is entirely up to him; he can appoint all the duff ambassadors who have ever walked through the Foreign Office, if that is what he wants to do. However, my fear is that in creating this mixed role, where somebody is a quasi-Minister who has been given a job for life in the House of Lords, who is a member of the legislature but it is meant to be a special adviser, and who is a special adviser who can none the less give direction to civil servants, he has created Frankenstein’s monster.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making the point that the choice of National Security Adviser is properly one for the Prime Minister. I dissent from the assertion that there was anything duff about the ambassadorial role that David Frost played. He has been a very distinguished civil servant—

[Chris Bryant]

You didn’t work with him as an ambassador!

[Michael Gove]

He was a very distinguished civil servant, and it is certainly the case that those whom I know who work in the Foreign Office have nothing but praise for him. Talking about political appointments, the distinguished former Cabinet Minister, Paul Boateng, was appointed by a Labour Government as high commissioner to South Africa and, as I mentioned earlier, a Member of the House of Lords, Michael Levy, again a distinguished figure who was a fundraiser for the Labour party, was appointed as a special envoy to Israel. My own view is: Michael Levy, Paul Boateng—good appointments; David Frost—excellent appointment.

Covid-19 Update

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has his finger on the pulse. I was earlier informed that the First Minister of Scotland was about to make a statement uncannily similar to the one that I have just made, as she has done several times before, but I may be misinformed about that. It remains none the less the case that the similarities between our approaches greatly outweigh the differences.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister referred to support for local authorities. The Rhondda, during this period, has had three very severe bouts of flooding, including last week. Many homes have lost absolutely everything because they have no insurance. The local authority now faces a bill of somewhere in the region of £67 million to repair culverts, drains, pumping stations and gullies, and replace many bridges. We also have a landslide from an old coal tip, which is in danger of doing very significant damage if we cannot remove the 60,000 tonnes of earth. That is still a Westminster responsibility. The Prime Minister may not have the answer now, but will he please make sure we get the £2.5 million very swiftly so that we can do that work quickly? We do not want another Aberfan.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I am aware of those risks. We are working with Mark Drakeford and the Welsh Government on those problems. As he knows, we are putting £4 billion into flood defences. If we face real problems of unemployment—no doubt we will—getting to work on putting in better flood defences for the future will be an important way of driving job creation.

UK-EU Negotiations

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is right that in Wednesbury, Oldbury, Tipton and across the west midlands, businesses want certainty. That is what our announcements provide.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Two industries in Wales are particularly interested in what will happen in relation to any trade agreement. The first is Welsh lamb, because there is a real danger that the Welsh lamb industry will collapse if we do not have a completely tariff-free arrangement with the EU. We hardly sell any Welsh lamb outside Europe. The second is the avionics industry, which is so important in my patch and across the whole of south Wales, where thousands of people are already in great uncertainty about whether their job will still be there later this year. They need to know whether BA, GE and many other companies will be able to flourish in the new environment.

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman makes two important points. He is right that the avionics industry is a jewel in Wales’s and the United Kingdom’s crown, and everything we do in these trade negotiations will be intended to support it. He is also right that Welsh lamb is second to none—well, apart from Scottish lamb.

[Chris Bryant]

Is it second to none or not?

[Michael Gove]

It is second to Scottish lamb; that is my view, purely as a consumer.

[Chris Bryant]

You are not winning here.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. That is not fair.

Global Britain

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s support. I know that he wrestled with the issue when he was doing the job that I once did as well. I think that he has come to the right conclusion. As for his suggestion on how we will work it in government, I listened carefully to what he had to say.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The world increasingly thinks that this country under this Prime Minister is a basket case—the highest excess death rates in the world, the deepest economic collapse, schools returning in complete and utter chaos, and a quarantine introduced after the horse has bolted. At a moment of international crisis, the biggest idea that the Prime Minister has is that he should change the Foreign Office letterhead. This is a nonsense. Does he not realise that this is not a statement on global Britain; it is a statement from little England?

[The Prime Minister]

I was saddened and disappointed to hear the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. We are making an important change to how we work our foreign policy. He should applaud and welcome that, and, by the way, he should also not run this country down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

The ambassador.

[The Prime Minister]

Thank you. That is the ambassador. That is how it works. It is very important that everybody understands that. I repeat what I said to my friend, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), which is that we will ensure that we keep that investment in East Kilbride and keep supporting East Kilbride, which, of course, the hon. Gentleman, through his desire to break up the United Kingdom, would be throwing away.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Chris Bryant Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

It is a great pleasure to open this debate. The purpose of the Bill is straightforward: to meet the Government’s manifesto pledge of delivering updated and equal parliamentary boundaries, making sure that every vote counts the same. We will do so on the basis of 650 constituencies.

The principal legislative framework set out in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 remains in place. The Bill makes a small number of amendments to that in order to move us forward with some aspects of the timing and the process of future boundary reviews and, as I said, returning the number of constituencies to 650.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

There is a fundamental flaw, which the Minister brought out for us in her very first paragraph. I think Ministers think that by trying to rejig the constituencies they will make every vote count equally. That is not true. The only way we can do that is by having a proportional electoral system. We could make every person count equally if we counted our boundaries not by the number of registered voters in a constituency but by the number of people, which is what every other country in the world does.

[Chloe Smith]

A huge chunk of what the hon. Gentleman proposes is out of the scope of the Bill, but in terms of what is in scope, I hope therefore that he will reject the Labour party’s amendment, which goes against equalising the size of constituencies by arguing against the tolerance quota. I am sure he will consider that as he comes to vote tonight.

Let me pre-empt a question that might legitimately be asked: why are we doing this now, given the other challenges that are presented by the coronavirus? Of course, we absolutely rely on the electors of the UK to cast their vote and choose the Government of the day, and fundamental to that is the idea that each vote carries the same weight. We can achieve those equal votes only through a robust system of boundary reviews. They should be regular, thorough and impartial, and it is those reviews that provide us with updated and equal constituencies.

The last implemented update of Westminster constituencies was based on electoral data from the very early 2000s. That means that our current constituencies take no account of our youngest voters, and nor do they reflect nearly two decades of demographic shift, house building and migration. That cannot be right. The purpose of the Bill is to update those rules. It needs to do that so that the next review, which is due to start in early 2021, can proceed promptly and deliver, with some certainty, the updated and equal constituencies that the electorate deserves.

I will run through the main elements of the Bill. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me say at the outset that in doing this I have engaged extensively with interested parties, including representatives of the parliamentary parties and electoral administrators, to ensure that these proposals are as good as they can be.

As I mentioned at the start, the Bill will amend the existing legislation to ensure that we continue to have 650 parliamentary constituencies in the UK, as we do now. In order to achieve that, the Bill brings to a close the 2018 boundary review, without implementation. It removes the Government’s obligation to bring those recommendations of the 2018 review into effect, because those proposals would take us down to 600 constituencies.

This is a change of policy from that adopted under the coalition Government. We have listened to views expressed across the House, including that of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and I am pleased that Opposition Members have stated their support for retaining 650 constituencies. We believe that the decision to move to 600 seats is no longer the right choice for the British public because circumstances have changed. In the past decade, the population has grown and we have, of course, left the European Union, which means that significant areas of policy and law making are coming back to all the legislatures of the Union, including the UK Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

Question agreed to.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am afraid there are three parts to this, the first of which relates to the voting we have already done. I was a Teller in one of the earlier Divisions this afternoon. It is up to others to judge quite how ludicrous the whole process looks to the outside world, but to my mind it looks preposterous. I feel that one of the oldest Parliaments in the world should be the best and most able to adapt to modern circumstances, not the worst, but that is a battle for another day. There were some specific order issues during those Divisions, with one being that the Speaker adopted a new version of what we had to wear when voting. I just wonder whether we could have some clarity on that for the future, as, historically, people, including some Whips, have been able to vote in the Lobby when they have been to the gym.

Secondly, one Member tried, during one of the Divisions, to vote in both directions. I know that historically that has not been allowed, but the Member is certainly under the belief that that was recorded. As I understand it—I was one of the Tellers—we were not including that as one of the votes on either side, so it would be good to have some clarity on that.

The other point is that the Leader of the House said earlier in today’s debate that we were going to have a motion on the Order Paper tomorrow for us to debate enabling some Members of the House to participate not, I think, in debates, but in urgent questions, questions and statements. Obviously, I would welcome that, but as I understand it the Government have not so far announced what kind of debate it will be, whether any time will be allocated for it tomorrow, whether it is expected that this should be agreed to on nod or nothing, whether we are able to table amendments, or whether we have to submit to be able to take part in that debate. There are many of us who feel deeply concerned that the Government have tabled a motion that suggests the only people who will be able to participate are those who self-certify as having a medical need. I do not think that disabled people, or people who are shielding or have shielding responsibilities for others, should be treated in that way. I do not think that they should have to justify themselves for wanting to participate from a distance. In particular, parents who have childcare responsibilities should certainly not have to claim that there is some kind of medical reason. Some of us would therefore like to have a full debate.

I am sorry that that is a long point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, but you are a very indulgent man.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you very much, Mr Bryant. As far as the first point is concerned, you said it was a battle for another day and clearly it will be. On the dress code during a Division, you are absolutely right. In the past, people have come straight from the gym and worn what they were in when the Division Bell rang. I will ensure that that gets raised tomorrow, so that clarity is brought to how people should dress when there is a Division, as I will on voting both ways. We do not have the opportunity to abstain or, for whatever reason—we can only hazard a guess as to why people do it—vote both ways.

As far as the motion tomorrow is concerned, I have not seen that motion yet, but you have raised several points as to why people would want to at least make known their anger, one way or another, as to what may or may not happen in that motion. I hope that Members will get an opportunity to at least express their views, however that motion is brought forward. I hope that is okay. [Interruption.] Thank you very much, Mr Bryant. The thumbs up will do me fine.

Draft Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2020

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2020 General Committees

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is a great delight to see you in the Chair, Sir David, not least because I think you were here when the legislation was introduced. I do not mean the Bill of Rights 1688, obviously; I mean the 2006 Act. I remember it because we were both in the Chamber on Report and on Third Reading, which was quite contentious at the time, because the Act includes substantial measures on desertion and absence without leave. Those were highly contentious issues in the aftermath of the Iraq war. I remember very clearly the current Leader of the Opposition and shadow Chancellor being the most irritating people in the Chamber. I have a slight anxiety that they may go back to that position in a year’s time, when we get to the next round of legislation.

The Minister slightly understates the danger of not passing the draft order: the danger is that it would be illegal for the British Government to hold any form of armed forces—certainly an Army, because that is what is specified in the Bill of Rights, but I would have thought, by extension, any form of armed forces—for the United Kingdom. Of course it is important that the draft order is agreed.

I must say, however, that it is a slightly odd process that successive Governments have decided on to arrive at the piece of paper before us today. The 2006 Act presumed that there would be a 2011 Act, then a 2016 Act and a 2021 Act, and that they would be more or less the same as the original Act, with some bits added. However, in 2011 the Government decided that they would instead insert into the 2006 Act a first clause that said that we could keep on doing it by annual motions, by Order in Council, until the end of 2021.

Personally, I do not think that that really counts as the House of Commons granting consent to the continuation of the armed forces. The vast majority of Members will have absolutely no idea that we are in this Committee Room tonight or have any idea about the debate. I think that is a shame, not because I want to hinder the Government, but because our armed forces frankly deserve, at least once a year, a debate on the Floor of the House in which we decide, as Parliament, that we will positively affirm our support for our armed forces, rather than this kind of up-in-my-lady’s-boudoir affair. [Interruption.] The Whip woke up at that point.

We have a strange system to explain to any ordinary member of the armed forces. I am sure that when the Minister was informed that this was the process that he would have to explain tonight, he was slightly flummoxed by it. The 2006 Act did important things. For a start, it meant that all the services were treated in the same way in legislation from the beginning. It brought in, as I said, measures to do with desertion and absence without leave, but more importantly it made sure that no member of the armed forces could suffer double jeopardy, which was always a danger under the previous law. A member of the armed forces could sometimes be tried in a court martial and then also in the common courts of the land.

There is one other issue, and there is a sadness about the fact that we are dealing with it in this way. Like many other Members, I worry about vexatious claims being brought against members of the British armed forces long after the events took place. This is not an easy issue to resolve. I remember that when I was a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for about five minutes, we faced the tough problem of trying to bring back serious war criminals from countries in the Balkans and make sure that they saw justice. Just having allowed years to pass was not a good enough reason for us not to want to bring them to justice.

The obvious danger is that if we as a country end up effectively outlawing any kind of claim against the British armed forces, we are saying to other armed forces in other parts of the world that are much less pernickety about these matters that they can do whatever they want. In a sense, the fact that we still deal with this issue in this way is a lost opportunity. However, I of course support some of the Minister’s endeavours, and particularly his endeavour tonight. I add that I am still waiting for my meeting with him about acquired brain injury.