Bullying and Harassment of MPs’ Parliamentary Staff
Chris Bryant Excerpts(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman has raised a very specific and interesting point, to which, I am sorry to say, I do not immediately know the answer. I always like to know all the answers. [Interruption.] I am being told by Members sitting behind the hon. Gentleman that the answer is yes, but I will clarify that one way or the other and write to him accordingly.
None of the points that I have made are intended to suggest that progress has not already been achieved, or that serious shortcomings in the management of, and behaviour towards, members of staff have been universal. Indeed, in her report Gemma White says:
“Most Members of Parliament treat their staff with dignity and respect”.
She says that she
“received a number of written contributions from people who wrote only to tell me about their positive experiences in Parliament.”
As she points out, that was despite the fact that her remit did not extend to inviting people to do so. She also says that during her work on the report, she heard or read of MPs who were
“MPs who were “a model employer”, “a fantastic boss”, “the best employer I have ever had”.
The report draws attention to areas of slow progress, but recognises that important progress has been made. The independent complaints and grievance scheme is praised as being
“an appropriate and relatively sophisticated means of investigating allegations.”
I echo the report’s praise for the dedicated implementation team who have made the scheme’s introduction, in the report’s own words, “a success”. Its operation is a clear improvement in the support that it offers to victims of bullying and harassment, and is also a firm indication of the seriousness with which Parliament views these matters. It shows the will and determination in the House to take strong and effective steps, working across the parties with the unified purpose of addressing inappropriate behaviour wherever it is found. It is important not to forget that before the introduction of the scheme, most complainants typically had recourse only to the Member about whom they were complaining, or to party political processes.
There has, of course, also been the Cox report. The White report calls for the implementation of Dame Laura Cox’s key recommendations, which include the removal of the June 2017 cut-off for historical complaints. That will be the subject of the motion that I will move shortly after this debate. If the motion is agreed, it will be a significant and important step forward. It will open up the ICGS to those who, for example, may have been bullied or harassed as recently as just before the last general election, and/or are no longer in the employ of a Member.
Although I recognise that there has been progress, there should be absolutely no cause for complacency, and Gemma White makes a number of important recommendations. Some appear relatively straightforward to consider and, potentially, implement, such as the recommendation for a review of confidentiality clauses within the standard contracts of employment of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority; the recommendation that IPSA should send out staff exit surveys; and the recommendation that the House Service should address the
“fair recruitment and management of staff with disabilities”
in its training. Other recommendations will require more thought, and present significant further questions. For instance, there is the recommendation that a new human resources department should be set up to cover Members’ staff, and to include HR personnel located both centrally and out in the regions.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I do not understand why there is any debate about this bit. I think that the vast majority of Members, when they arrived in the House, would welcome with open arms the idea of a good HR function here, providing them good training, because many of us were never employers before we came here. I just do not understand why it is difficult for us to put that together. It seems to me to be the simplest thing of all.
Mel Stride
I do not think that anything I have said has suggested that we should not go ahead with this recommendation. The point that I am making is that it is a quite a major proposition which needs to be thought through carefully, as does any proposal of this magnitude. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. That rather implies that he does not think it should be thought through carefully, which I am sure is not what he is intending to communicate.
Chris Bryant
I am not questioning the integrity of the Leader of the House, and I am sure that he is not questioning mine. It is just that this debate has been around for quite a long time, and the House of Commons Commission probably needs to meet more frequently and be able to transact business more expeditiously so that we can get on with this. The Finance Committee stands ready to do its share of the work, but honestly, some of us have been arguing for HR for a very long time.
Mel Stride
I know that some Members have been arguing for various aspects of the approach that we should take to addressing harassment, sexual harassment and bullying, and I know that there have been issues around the time that it has taken to put into place various aspects of our appropriate response to that. What I am saying from the Dispatch Box this afternoon is that we are now moving with pace. Directly after this debate we will have, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, a motion to bring in and broaden the scope of the ICGS, and that in itself is an example of how we are now moving forward with pace.
However, while recognising the progress made, there should be absolutely no cause for complacency on the various recommendations I have highlighted that have been brought forward by Gemma White. Consideration of the recommendations is of course a matter for the House, and today’s debate is an important part of that process. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the fact that this debate has been brought forward so shortly after the release of the White report is in itself a very healthy sign. We need now to continue to proceed at pace, to come to our conclusions on the recommendations of the report as soon as possible, and to bring forward further much-needed change at the earliest possible opportunity. We owe that to those who do so much to support us as Members of Parliament, but we owe it also to those who send us here and who in turn rightly expect the highest possible standards of each and every one of us.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate today, following the publication of Gemma White QC’s report last week. I would first like to pay tribute to her for the incredibly detailed independent inquiry that she led. Her report into the historical allegations of bullying and harassment of MPs’ staff adds greatly to the work done by the independent complaints and grievance scheme working group and will drive much-needed further reforms in the way we treat and value all those who work for and support us in our roles as MPs.
I also want to acknowledge all the current and former staff members who contributed their experiences to the inquiry and helped to expose behaviours that have clearly gone on in this place for far too long.
I met Gemma White during my time as Leader of the House and found her to be both knowledgeable and determinedly constructive in supporting Parliament’s desire to modernise our practices. Her report highlights the need for everyone working in or visiting Parliament to be treated with dignity and respect, but she also highlighted some truly unacceptable employment practices. I was appalled, as I am sure were colleagues from both sides of the House, to read some of the comments from staff. As part of my work in chairing the ICGS working group, I heard some pretty harrowing testimony from several individuals, and I want to pay tribute to them for their bravery in coming forward to speak with the group. It is clear that we in Parliament must bring about long-lasting and positive institutional change without delay, and that change must come from the very top. Only then can we truly restore confidence in how Parliament works.
The report acknowledges that the ICGS provides MPs’ staff for the first time with a mechanism for having complaints of bullying and harassment independently investigated. Feedback from some of the first complainants is that turnaround times under the new procedure can be too slow. My first observation is that the scheme is still developing, so it is important that we allow it time to become fully embedded into the fabric of Westminster. The staff working for the scheme are all fully committed to continuous improvements in its processes. Secondly, I am glad that the White report agrees that employment relationships should continue to sit with individual MPs, and I fully agree with the recommendation for a centralised human resources function for MPs’ staff.
However, the question of where the responsibility for a new HR function would lie must be considered further, although the two obvious candidates would be either IPSA or the House authorities themselves. The former—I am sorry to say—currently suffers from fairly widespread feedback from Members’ staff about a lack of confidence in its practices and hence in its ability to be the supportive voice that staff members need. The other alternative provider of HR for staff would be the House authorities themselves. During the working group, they raised concerns about taking on an HR role for themselves, because that could create an unhelpful secondary employment relationship, but it would be worthwhile looking again at whether that could be the best way forward.
A key aspect of the White report is that many current staff still feel uncomfortable making complaints, and to assure them the working group must focus specifically on ensuring that, as far as possible, an individual’s career will not be affected in any way if they come forward with a complaint. That is why the ICGS carries out any investigation in strict confidence. I urge anyone with a grievance or a complaint to be encouraged to come forward via the helplines that have been widely advertised around the estate.
As part of the scope of the working group, it was recommended that a wide range of training should be available to MPs and their staff. The White report recommends making some of that training mandatory in order to bring about institutional behavioural change, and I totally agree. All MPs and all staff working for MPs should now be required to undertake at least the Valuing Everyone training that was implemented as part of the ICGS. I call on each of the Whips Offices to ensure that their MPs have completed their training within six months of the report’s publication.
Chris Bryant
When someone arrives here—perhaps straight out of university—to work for a Member of Parliament, that MP may be their first employer, so all the bad ways that they learn from them then become the bad ways that they may get into in later life, perhaps when they later go on to become an MP or work elsewhere in the civil service. Is it not therefore all the more important that new Members of Parliament are trained in human resources best practice from the moment they arrive here?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He has followed this closely, and he will recall that, during the working group’s investigations, it was clear that we needed to take things slowly and not to push for too much change too quickly, but it is also apparent that Parliament has come to value its progress and its modernisation of practices, and so on. We can now move much faster than was thought back in late 2017. It is right that people should undertake mandatory training, particularly if they will be employing staff who may be coming into their first job.
Business of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mel Stride
I know that the Secretary of State will have heard my right hon. Friend’s comments about the importance of, as I might express it, the human touch in the interaction between patients and GPs, and the dangers of the use of technology. As a rejoinder to his poetic contribution, let me perhaps reach to paraphrase John Donne, the great metaphysical poet—
Mel Stride
Yes, and MP. He said, on this issue of us being connected to humanity: “No man is an island entire of itself; any man’s death diminishes me for I am involved in mankind; therefore do not send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of the frequency and volume of flights from London City airport. I would point him to Transport questions, which will be held on Thursday.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Six months ago today, I visited my GP with a small mole on the back of my head. I was very fortunate that the GP passed me straight on to the dermatologist and everything happened quickly, but since then I have met dozens and dozens of people for whom the most galling thing about their cancer diagnosis is being told that is quite late—stage 3 or 4. I have met young women who have lost their mother, including one last week who was still in tears, because she felt that if only the diagnosis had been faster, they would have been able to save her life. Yet 97% of pathology units in England say that they are understaffed, we have about 600 too few dermatologists in the country, and in Wales we have 22 consultant pathologist posts empty. How can we make sure that we save people’s lives if we do not have enough staff? Can we have a debate on this?
Mel Stride
I join the whole House in saying how pleased we are that the hon. Gentleman received prompt and appropriate treatment, and that he has had a full recovery. The Government’s record on cancer survival rates generally is good, but there is always room for improvement. What is really important is the additional funds being put into the national health service: £84 billion over the next five years, the largest single cash investment in its history. Cancer features prominently in the NHS 10-year plan, both in terms of getting survival rates up still further and ensuring we prevent cancers in the first place, and, as he rightly points out, in early diagnosis of cancer in all its forms.
Cox Report: Implementation
Chris Bryant Excerpts(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jess Phillips
I thank the Chair and put on record that she very much welcomed the fact that my name went forward on to the Order Paper—before it was withdrawn —so that I could have been appointed to that Committee.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Is not one of the ironies that although we have elections in our political parties for all the positions on all the other Select Committees, we do not have elections for these places? If there had been an election in the Labour party or, for that matter, across the House, I do not doubt for a single instant that my hon. Friend would have been elected.
Jess Phillips
Indeed. It seems that we are sometimes democratic within my movement and sometimes not.
Andrea Leadsom
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I had the great pleasure of going, with my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), to one of the first prototypes of the Valuing Everyone training. I join him in thoroughly recommending that all colleagues undertake that training. It is quite insightful and extremely helpful.
Let me move on to address further points made in Alison Stanley’s report that should inform the roll-out of the responses to the Cox inquiry. Alison Stanley talks about independence. Quite often, people who want to come forward with a complaint will be concerned that they do not want it to be discussed with somebody whom they may then come across, whether in a corridor, a Select Committee or, indeed, the Terrace café. They do not want to feel that they are going to bump into the person, so the scheme’s true independence is vital, and Alison Stanley makes strong recommendations in that regard on which we should focus.
I wish to focus my remarks on the final point, which is about the ownership of the scheme. This goes right to the heart of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley said: who owns this scheme? We want to see things happen—we all say that it is not happening fast enough and ask why. The reality is that the recommendations in the Stanley report set out the problem rather than the solution. Using her best efforts, she has in effect sought to use current parliamentary processes to try to find a little scrap of accountability somewhere. I am afraid we are going to have to change that, so I shall focus on some specific recommendations.
First, the House of Commons Commission has struggled to tackle issues—not only this one, but others—at pace. The Commission should meet every week, not every month, and should have a much shorter, more focused agenda. The Clerk of the Commons and the director general should be voting members, not people who just sit there giving comments and are then overruled. They are clearly the two humans who are accountable for many issues, including the roll-out of this scheme and of changes to the culture, so it is right that they have a say on the House of Commons Commission.
The Commission’s meeting times should be fixed, and if the chair is unable to attend, as is often the case, an alternative—I suggest it should be one of the external commissioners—should step in and chair the meeting instead, rather than it being cancelled or delayed, as happens now and is often a problem for the other attendees. The minutes of House of Commons Commission meetings should be circulated promptly within a couple of days, in line with best practice in the business world, not with the agenda for the next meeting, as so often happens now.
On the point of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, MPs should be elected on to the House of Commons Commission. Colleagues are saying, “I don’t know how the House of Commons Commission works. What does it do?” The reality is that if Members were elected to it, they would find out. In the House of Commons, we should be electing the members not only of the Commission, but of the Standards Committee. It should not be the case that somebody who might be dangerously independent is muzzled.
Chris Bryant
It is almost a shame to see the right hon. Lady on the Back Benches—no, it is a shame to see her on the Back Benches not least because she was taking this matter forward with such verve and energy and I applaud her for that. She knows that I completely agree with all the recommendations that she has made thus far. We should be electing people on to the Commission, and the Commission should be meeting far more frequently so that it can transact more business more swiftly. Should we not also be electing all of the House Committees so that they can feed into the Commission more effectively?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman and I have had lots of conversations about this. We are in complete agreement, and I am quite sure that he and I would make a good fist of proposing a wholesale set of changes for the House of Commons Commission, including for the Finance and Administration Committees, but that is not the subject for today. None the less, what the whole issue of culture change in this place highlights is the need to change the way that we manage it, which is why I want to focus specifically on our recommendations for changes to the House Commission.
The final point on which I would like to focus is that, in dealing with culture change, we really have to do so in a bicameral way. I will not go through the sequence of events, but, essentially, we approved our report in July. The House of Lords approved theirs in November of that year. It was only in May of this year that they changed their standards Committee, so we are completely out of step. What they have agreed is not the same as what we have agreed, and this issue is absolutely integral to the point about sanctioning. I want to talk briefly about that before I draw to a close.
I am delighted to see that a number of members of the working group are here today and I thank them all again for what was such a fantastic cross-party collegiate piece of work. Let us be clear: this is not all about MPs. Members employ staff, the House employs staff and there are many, many contractors here. There are 15,000 people who work in the Palace of Westminster. Although this is not all about MPs, there are some really important considerations for them.
The working group wanted to ensure that a member of staff and/or an MP or a peer could be sanctioned even if they resign or, in the case of an MP, step down or lose their seat. This is very important. In all cases, the working group felt that records of bullying and harassing behaviour should be kept so that a member of staff or a Member of Parliament could be sanctioned should they ever return to either House. In this way, an MP who was given a peerage might be rejected outright potentially by the Lord standards Committee for their previous record in this House of bullying and harassment. A member of House or MPs’ staff, or, indeed, a contractor could be sanctioned by being ineligible for a security pass should they seek re-employment in either House. These are really important points. I do not want to labour this, but I really do think that this has to be bicameral. We cannot have this going down two separate tracks so that someone can step down as an MP, go and get their peerage and then sit pretty at that end—as long as they do not repeat their nasty behaviour, they can get away with it scot-free. That point is key.
I was delighted by recent visits that I received when I was Leader of the House from Canadian and Australian delegations and by my own trips to visit the Llywydd in Wales and the presiding officer in Scotland to talk about our complaints procedure in the UK Parliament. They are looking closely at what we are doing here. What I really hope and pray for is that this old and very much loved Parliament can demonstrate real change and can provide a genuine role model for other Parliaments right around the world. If we can achieve that and truly get to the point where we treat all who work and visit here with dignity and respect, we will have achieved a lasting legacy from this generation of UK parliamentarians.
Business of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(4 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mel Stride)
The business for the week commencing 10 June will include:
Monday 10 June—Remaining stages of the National Insurance Contributions (Termination Awards and Sporting Testimonials) Bill, followed by a debate on a motion on the mineworkers pension scheme. The subject of this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 11 June—Motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Enforcement) (Amendment) Order 2019, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019, followed by a general debate on the UK voluntary national review on the sustainable development goals.
Wednesday 12 June—Opposition day (unallotted day). There will be a debate on inequality and social mobility, followed by a debate on discrimination in sport. Both debates will arise on a motion in the name of the official Opposition.
Thursday 13 June—Debate on a motion on social housing, followed by a general debate on making Parliament a more modern, family-friendly and accessible workplace. The subjects of these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 14 June—The House will not be sitting.
May I, on this particular occasion, extend the best wishes and thoughts of the whole House to all who are assembled in Normandy today to reflect on and commemorate the D-day landings?
It has been a very crowded field, with many runners and riders, but here I am as the new Leader of the House, and also as the new Lord President of the Council, which means that I have become a leader without an election and a lord without having to be elevated to the peerage. For having quietly achieved that during these tumultuous times, I think I should be congratulated.
Mel Stride
Indeed I have.
I would like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). In so doing, Mr Speaker, may I say that I hope that we can continue in the warm and familiar spirit that characterised your relationship with my predecessor, and hope that I can benefit from your continued indulgence? My right hon. Friend travelled the length and breadth of our country to press the case for our Parliament. She pressed hard to protect the very fabric of our Parliament with all her work around restoration and renewal. She fought for the piloting of proxy votes to make this place a more family-friendly environment. She worked particularly hard to change the culture in the Palace of Westminster so that there should be no place for bullying or harassment of any kind. We owe her a great debt.
I would also like briefly to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), who stood in at such short notice on the previous occasion and performed with such oratorical brilliance and dexterity. His are big shoes to fill, not least because he has very large feet.
For my part, I will strive to be an effective voice for Parliament in Government and to conduct myself in a consensual and inclusive manner. My door will always be open to Members right across this House—especially, of course, to the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), and all those who speak for their parties and the Committees of this House.
Beyond these walls, I will play my part to defend our democracy, in a world in which the public square has too often become a place of misinformation and abuse. This House is precious, yet sometimes fragile. When it is degraded, we are diminished, but when it is at its best, we are all enriched.
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend raises an excellent point, and I do of course join him in paying tribute to Diane McGregor, Sandra McLennan and the amazing band of volunteers for their outstanding work and for receiving the Queen’s award for voluntary service. The Government recognise the huge importance of volunteering and it would be an excellent subject for an Adjournment debate.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I warmly congratulate the new Leader of the House, although I will not do your trick, Mr Speaker, of reminding him of where we first met as it would be far too embarrassing for me. May I just say that I think his answers on Prorogation and whether a new Prime Minister will address the House swiftly after being elected have been wholly inadequate so far? It would surely be on a Venezuelan scale of outrage if we were to prorogue Parliament simply to force through a no-deal Brexit against the will of Parliament. Even Winston Churchill—during the midst of war when the British Expeditionary Force was in danger of complete collapse in France and we were trying to get people out of Dunkirk—when he was made Prime Minister in May 1940 addressed the House of Commons just three days later. Even the Marquess of Salisbury in 1885 knew he had to come to Parliament the next day. So surely to God the new Leader of the House should be able to say to us today, “Yes, a new Prime Minister will address the House of Commons within a week of being appointed.”
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I am not quite as shy as him about revealing to the House where we first met: I was very proud to meet the hon. Gentleman I think for the first time as a fully signed up member of the Conservative party at Oxford University. Quite where it all went wrong after that I have no idea, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to come and talk to me about the error of his ways at any point I will be happy to try to enlighten him on those matters.
The hon. Gentleman raises once again the issue of Prorogation, and he will know that these matters and others are all going to be decisions that the future Prime Minister will take and that it is not for me to speculate about what they might be.
Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill
Chris Bryant ExcerptsTuesday 21st May 2019
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 View all Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
I am slightly disappointed to hear the right hon. Lady’s intervention. This Bill is about setting up a Sponsor Body and a Delivery Authority to restore the Palace of Westminster, which, as I have just said, we are obliged to do whether or not we stay here. There is always a considerable amount of work going on to assess and analyse the location of various different Government Departments and agencies right around the United Kingdom. Today, however, we are simply looking at the Second Reading of a Bill that enables us to undertake our legal duty to restore this Palace, whether or not we stay here. It is not for us to consider under this Bill the whole of government. I hope that all hon. Members will appreciate that we are seeking to facilitate Parliament’s decision that we must take very seriously our financial, fiduciary and cultural duties to this place.
The House was very clear in early 2018 that work needed to be taken forward to protect and preserve the heritage of the Palace. I want to pay tribute to the hard work of Members and staff who have got us to this place. In particular, I would like to mention my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) and her Committee, which undertook pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill; the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster, which recommended that we decant; my predecessors as Leader of the House, my right hon. Friends the Members for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington); the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who eloquently made the case last year for a full decant; the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), who agreed to support the Bill; and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who always speaks with such passion on this issue.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I have this horrible feeling that the Leader of the House is winding up or coming to the end, and I just want to raise the issue of planning. One of the biggest threats to the whole project is if the northern estate programme, which is essential to delivering R and R, ends up by being delayed by lengthy judicial review or planning problems. The advice seems to have been given that if we include some kind of planning provision that brings planning into the Sponsor Body or the Delivery Authority, that will make this a hybrid Bill. However, the Olympics Bill was not a hybrid Bill, and that had a planning provision that was granted to the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, so why can we not do the same for this Bill?
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but I will still respond to the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) specifically on his point.
Chris Bryant
Several times, the Leader of the House has referred to the seven parliamentarians who will be on the Sponsor Body, but the Bill says no fewer than four and no more than eight. The Joint Committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) suggested that they should be elected Members. Should there not be more Members of the House of Commons than Members of the House of Lords, and would it not be a good idea for them to be elected?
Andrea Leadsom
This is a matter for the House to decide. I am talking about seven parliamentarians, because that is what is currently on the shadow Sponsor Body. It is, of course, for the House to make such decisions. The parties put forward their nominees, and that is the reason there are four peers and three Members of this House. This is precisely a very good example of where it is for the House to decide what structure it wants. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a bit more progress.
The Bill is not simply about restoring an old building in an urgent state of disrepair. This is about the ambition we have for a 21st century Parliament, which is more family-friendly and a truly modern workplace. The work we are undertaking provides Parliament with the opportunity to consider the daily working of the Palace. It is clear that the programme should seek improvements to the Palace for people with disabilities to gain access, but there is also an opportunity to resolve issues with long queues at visitor entrances and to offer more inclusive access to Parliament across the country by improving some of our broadcasting services.
The work will also provide employment opportunities right across the UK. The programme will require specialist skills, which, especially in the heritage sector, tend to be found in small and medium-sized enterprises. Apprenticeship schemes right across the UK will be able to engage in the work of restoring the Palace. This is already happening on other projects being carried out on the parliamentary estate, such as the encaustic tile conservation project. R and R also offers the opportunity to enhance the experience of students visiting Westminster, whether through improved educational facilities in the Palace or the opportunities of the Richmond House replica Chamber.
As hon. Members across the House know, I passionately believe in making Parliament a more family-friendly place to work. R and R will provide an opportunity to help make our workplace the best it can be in supporting Members to balance the long hours they work in this House with their family commitments and better reflect the public we are here to represent. That is just a run-through of some of my own views, but I recognise that all Members will have opinions on what they want to see delivered as part of R and R. That is why the Bill includes a specific duty on the Sponsor Body to consult parliamentarians on the strategic objectives of the R and R works.
Members across the House will also have views on the decant to our temporary workplace during R and R. In passing the motions in early 2018, Parliament was clear that as part of R and R it would temporarily leave the Palace, so that the restoration and renewal work can be done more quickly and more cheaply.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I warmly commend the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) for his speech, and we now move from the dales to the valleys. I think he and I would agree that, as the Leader of the House said, when we first looked at restoration and renewal—I first looked at it in 2008 when I was Deputy Leader of the House—we saw it with a sceptical eye. I represent one of the poorest constituencies in the land, and I would love to see large amounts of money spent on infrastructure projects in my constituency to improve the national health service and to save people from the food bank existence that many in work still have to pursue. The truth is that this is not either/or but both/and. We have to tackle the poverty in our land and we have to make sure that this building is put right.
I know the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) wants to live in this building, however horrible he was about it, and my one major difference with him is that I do not think we can just sell the building as it would no longer be the icon that it currently is. Every Hollywood movie filmed in London, if it wants to show the United Kingdom, shows this building. The building would no longer be that icon if it were just a hotel. Frankly, I do not think anyone would want to take on the building on a commercial basis unless we had already sorted out the plumbing, the electricity and all the mechanical engineering. In actual fact, it would be more expensive for us to find a completely alternative venue, rather than to make this building good.
Meg Hillier
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Does he agree that, as the building is a UNESCO world heritage site, it is the responsibility of the Government, through the Treasury, to fund the work or to make sure it happens?
Chris Bryant
Absolutely, and the point has been made many times not only by my hon. Friend but by the Public Accounts Committee, which she chairs, that this is a cost-saving measure, rather than something to our detriment.
The Leader of the House mentioned many of the problems in the building, including the falling masonry and the danger of fire, but I want to start with the stench. Maybe this year more than any other, but the stench on the Terrace, on the Principal Corridor and in the basement rooms is absolutely appalling because the building’s drainage system is from 150 years ago. There is a beautiful piece of Victorian engineering down in the basement underneath the Speaker’s garden, but it is not fit for the 21st century. We need to be doing these things better.
For that matter, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) said admirably from the Front Bench, we need to get to a place where all the energy we consume in this building is used efficiently and is carbon neutral. That will be possible only if we have a major renewal of the mechanical engineering aspects of the building, which will be 75% of the bill.
I sometimes feel we are like King Canute trying to prevent the sewage from climbing up the stairs towards us. That is fitting because, of course, King Canute was the first person to build a palace on this piece of land at the beginning of the 11th century. It is bizarre that The Times has its office in a portakabin on the roof of this building. We would laugh at any other country in the world that looked after a UNESCO-listed building in such an appalling way.
The cloisters, one of the most beautiful parts of the building, are completely hidden to the vast majority of the public. They were built by Henry VIII, and who knows whether Thomas Cromwell, Oliver Cromwell or whoever else kept their horses in there? It does not matter, because the truth is that this beautiful perpendicular architecture is falling apart on our watch as we simply do not have the capacity to do all the work that needs to be done to the building at the same time.
We have dragged our heels. They may be beautiful heels, but they have been dragged for far too long. I am delighted that the Leader of the House, perhaps seizing the moment after the terrible fire at Notre Dame, which brought home the fact that a building is at most danger of fire during such work—exactly the situation in which we find ourselves—is taking advantage of the moment to put on her wellington boots and stomp over to Downing Street to say that now is the time to bring forward the Bill. I am enormously grateful to her for doing that.
We have already made some decisions, and I know people will want to review and revise those decisions endlessly into the future. The right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) did a good job of making sure that the Joint Committee on the Draft Parliamentary Buildings Bill did not keep on revising the decisions we have already decided. One of the things we have decided is that we will move out in one fell swoop and that we will come back. That does not necessarily mean that every single aspect of the Chamber will look exactly as it looks now.
We have to make sure this Chamber has proper disabled access. That will be complicated but, as the Joint Committee heard, there are many churches across the land that have had to deal with precisely these issues and have done so very beautifully and elegantly in a way that meets all the statutory requirements while respecting the history, the tradition and the architectural beauty of the places concerned. I am sure we can do that in this Chamber so that, for instance, a Clerk would be able to sit at the Table in a wheelchair, if necessary. Or, for that matter, an hon. Member in a wheelchair would not have to sit at the Bar of the House but could sit somewhere else—they could even be a Minister, a shadow Minister or the Speaker. All these things should be obvious to us today.
Other Members have already mentioned the issues for partially sighted people. Some years ago when I sat on the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) might mention later, one of the things that came home to me most strongly is that the dim lighting in this building makes it particularly difficult for people with partial sight to feel confident as they go around the building, to read papers and to take part in discussions and debates. That obviously affects Members of both Houses.
We have also decided that we will decant to Richmond House—that is a decision. There is no point constantly revising it. That is what is going to happen. I say to those who want constantly to revise these issues that, by doing so, all we would be doing is delaying, delaying and delaying, and every year of delay is another £100 million added to the bill.
We have also decided in principle to set up arm’s length bodies, just as the Olympics were delivered, with the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority, which is precisely what this Bill introduces. I fully support that process. There are, however, some problems that will need to be addressed in Committee and during the Bill’s remaining stages. The first is the issue of planning. The biggest risk to this whole process is the planning process. If we end up in protracted planning rows with Westminster City Council or if there is a judicial review, which could take many years, about either the northern estate programme or the restoration and renewal programme, that could put paid to the whole project. Everyone might at that point throw up their hands and say, “Oh gosh—this is too impossible. We will have to go back to ‘patch and mend’.”
I really want us to make sure that we have made the right decision on the planning question. The Committee considered the matter, but I think it was given wrong advice—bad advice, if I am honest. Notwithstanding the earlier comments of the Leader of the House about the difference between this and the London Olympics Bill—five local, planning authorities in east London were involved in that Bill, but only one is involved in this one—the repeated advice seemed to be that if we included a planning clause in this Bill, it would become a hybrid Bill.
I do not think there is any reason why this should become a hybrid Bill solely because of that. If we wanted to state that this was not to be such a Bill, that would be entirely within our power. It would be perfectly possible for us to say that we would give planning to the Delivery Authority, which could do exactly what was done during the Olympics: chair a planning committee, present planning proposals to itself and consider them openly. It managed to carry everybody with it, and the process was not confrontational; it simply meant that things could be done in a time-efficient way.
Members may not be aware of this, but one of the issues that has plagued us now for more than a decade— 16 years, I think—is what lighting we can put in Westminster Hall. We have put forward endless proposals; I have seen at least a dozen sets of pictures of what the lighting could be, yet we have still not managed to replace the hideous things up there now. I fear that we are going to go through exactly the same process—round and round in circles, not voting in Division Lobbies but trying to persuade another authority that we are doing the right thing.
I also want to raise accountability to Parliament. At the moment, there are more peers than MPs among the membership of the Sponsor Body. As the Leader of the House said, there are seven members, and the Whips Offices decided that the individual parties should nominate—not elect—people for it. Those on the Sponsor Body will be the major conduit for accountability to the House of Commons. They will make sure that the project does not run completely out of kilter with what Members of this House or the House of Lords think acceptable. I think it would be better if there were more Members of the House of Commons than of the House of Lords on the Sponsor Body because we have the primary responsibility for finance and have done since the 17th or maybe 16th century—and, after all, we are the representatives of our constituents.
Secondly, it would be better if Sponsor Body members were elected rather than appointed. Our experience thus far of electing Select Committee Chairs has been entirely positive: they have a mandate of their own and manage to bind views across the whole House. In general, transparency is a good thing. I note that the Leader of the House, when giving evidence to the Liaison Committee about something completely different last week, said that she is always in favour of elections whenever possible. I very much hope that we will be able to make that change during the passage of the Bill.
The Committee considered questions to the House, which could be made easier. Members will have genuine questions—why wouldn’t they, given that this will be one of the biggest infrastructure projects in the country? There will have to be somebody who answers for the Sponsor Body. That cannot be an external person; it needs to be a Member of Parliament. My suggestion is that the vice-chair of the Sponsor Body should be a Member of the House of Commons and respond to questions in the House. We should set aside a time every six weeks or so for 10 or 15 minutes of questions.
As Members will know, the next step is the northern estate programme. As chair of the finance committee, I would prefer that programme to move on a couple more steps before it is handed to the Delivery Authority and Sponsor Body. We are close to presenting a planning application to Westminster City Council and we need to get a little further down the road before we hand it over; otherwise, there is a danger that the Delivery Authority and Sponsor Body will get obsessed with the northern estate programme rather than with developing a full budget and costed plans for restoration and renewal.
We should be ambitious in this project. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire expressed valid concerns, and although I disagree with some of them, there is no point in our coming back to a building that looks exactly the same as now in every single regard. It has to have much better access for the public. My constituents have a long way to come if they want to see Parliament. At the moment, they find it difficult to do a proper tour of Parliament unless they can get here by 10 o’clock on a Monday morning. That is really difficult to achieve, especially for a primary school.
I would like us to have a system whereby the Gallery is much more convenient for members of the public to use. Perhaps they might even be able to talk in the Gallery, so that what is going on in the Chamber can be explained to youngsters, rather than their having to go out of the Gallery to have it explained. I see no reason why members of the public should not be able to tweet when they are in the Public Gallery, as visitors can when they go round the Bundestag or most other Parliaments. I would like us to have much easier physical access for disabled people, not only to the Gallery, which is obvious, but because the rest of the building needs to feel far more like it belongs to the whole of the public in this country.
My final point is that we will not be able to deliver this project unless we train thousands more British people to be able to do the work. It is not just about the crafts, such as being able to cut stone and make new gargoyles. No doubt there will be a new gargoyle of the Leader of the House, or the next Leader of the House, or, if the Leader of the House becomes Prime Minister, perhaps several gargoyles—[Interruption.] Or one of the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), indeed; that would be an even nicer gargoyle.
It is not just the craft skills that will be needed; we will need skills at the high-tech end of energy conservation, information technology, cabling and central heating in a system such as this, as well as conservation. I really hope that we will set up academies in every part of this country—we should be doing so now—so that young people from every single constituency in the land will think about working in this building as a matter of pride. I hope that at least 100 or 150 youngsters from the Rhondda end up working here, so that it is genuinely a palace for the people again.
Sir Edward Leigh
I see that I have immediately prompted something. I give way to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.
Sir Edward Leigh
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for not waiting until I had sat down, and I will now try to get back on track.
Chris Bryant
I think the right hon. Gentleman was about to give way to me at the time—before we were so rudely interrupted. Earlier, he raised the issue of the cloisters being vacated, and the fact that there is nobody in there, but no work has started. He is absolutely right, and this is deeply frustrating for an awful lot of Members. We have raised this in the Finance Committee and, I think, in the Administration Committee. One of the difficulties is that we are engaged in roughly 20 major estates projects, including the Elizabeth Tower, the cast-iron roofs and the courtyards—there are many very important projects—and there simply is not enough room on site to be able to house so many staff, feed them, provide them with a place to change and all the rest of it. This is a difficult site on which to be able to do so many major projects while we still have a fully functioning House of Commons and House of Lords.
Sir Edward Leigh
That is a fair point about the cloisters. I am just making my own point that the most important risk is that of fire, and I would have thought that we should drop everything else and try to deal with that.
I said earlier that I have accepted the will of the House, and it may well be necessary to have a decant, but I think it would be possible, certainly if we got rid of the September sittings—this point has not been mentioned yet—to make quicker progress. Undoubtedly, some of the problems we have been experiencing in recent years have revolved around the September sittings. I certainly believe that the Leader of the House could take professional advice on this, and if we could break up for the summer recess on 20 July, or thereabouts, and work full pelt until early October, perhaps we could make better progress.
The issue now is no longer about decant or no decant; the issue is whether, in the current economic climate, we can justify knocking down a grade II listed building, which was only completed in 1987, to accommodate a permanent replica Chamber of exactly the same size as the Chamber we are in, with Division Lobbies of the same size. To facilitate that, we will have to knock down a perfectly good listed building, which can be renovated and restored. By the way, this building, designed by Sir William Whitfield, has won numerous awards. The announcement that we were going to knock it down came just as he was approaching his death, and nearing his 100th birthday, and it is a strange way to celebrate the best of British.
When people, such as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), say that we could circumvent this process by giving ourselves planning powers, I just do not think that washes. I do not think it washes politically, and I do not think it is the right thing to do. We have to go through the normal planning procedure. This is a listed building. There will be long delays. The House must know that, already, campaigning organisations like SAVE are gearing up, preparing for a full public inquiry. Indeed, I have no doubt that there will be a full public inquiry; and there should be a full public inquiry. That could entail years of delay. Also—it is almost relevant to the point of order—there have already been disputes between the House authorities and the Ministry of Defence about the use of the car park. All these things are adding delay on to delay.
I should have thought that in the current economic climate, it would be possible to get on with the work as quickly as possible, and when it became necessary to move, to move to a cheaper option. My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden mentioned Church House, but there may be security concerns. When the original Committee met, they were simply going to build a replica House of Commons in the courtyard of Richmond House, which would not have entailed demolition. Then they found that the measurements were wrong; but the courtyard is still there. We do not necessarily need a replica the same size as this Chamber. We do not necessarily need to vote during a short period in the way that we do now. As I mentioned, we could use voting terminals in the Lobbies. There are all sorts of ways of doing this job more expeditiously and more cheaply, and equally safely. That is what I would suggest.
I have had meetings with Sir Michael Hopkins, the architect of Portcullis House. He designed the building during the problems with the IRA. It is absolutely bombproof. It is not ideal, but an emergency Chamber could be placed in the atrium of Portcullis House—an infinitely cheaper option. I agree it is not ideal, but actually we do not want to be too comfortable.
The problem I fear is that we may become too comfortable. If we are in a replica Chamber that looks almost exactly like this one—although it seems to have a more IKEA, Swedish feel to it, in a nod to modernism—I think we will become too comfortable. Many Members fear that, as the architects, builders and surveyors get hold of this project, and as more and more asbestos is discovered, and more and more problems, we could be out, not just for five years but for eight or 10. That is a real fear.
I personally believe the Leader of the House; I know that she is absolutely committed to our coming back. Other Members are worried that there will be more and more debate about whether, when we come back, we should change the whole nature of this place—our procedures and all the décor and so on. The Leader of the House has to convince us that every bit of the Barry structure—this iconic building—every bit of the Pugin decoration, which is admired worldwide, will be replaced exactly as it is, so that after five or eight or 10 years, we come back to Committee Rooms, to a Chamber, to Lobbies, that look identical. Of course the electrics, air conditioning and sewerage will be safer and better, but she has to convince Members of Parliament that the building will be exactly the same; because this is an historic building. It sums up what our nation is all about.
Not many Members—I think only three of us, including the shadow Leader of the House—attended an exercise last week in which, within an hour, the House authorities organised the House of Commons moving, in an emergency, to the Chamber of the House of Lords. They can do that within an hour. We went there. The tables were changed around. We sat on the red Benches—probably the only chance I will ever get to sit on the red Benches. It was a very enjoyable experience, I have to say. Lovely décor. Very civilised atmosphere. Much less confrontational than this place. But it can be done. And I commissioned an architect, who worked pro bono, who proved that it would be possible for the House of Commons, in an emergency, to move there and to take services externally if we were dealing with them here. My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden has also mentioned Church House.
It is not widely known that there is a flat-pack Chamber of the House of Commons, which could be set up in, for instance, Methodist Central Hall in an hour if there is an emergency. We really do have to be cognisant of public opinion. Of course we have to spend the money that is necessary; of course we have to make this place safe, but we cannot treat ourselves differently from the way that we would expect, for instance, local authorities to treat themselves in a similar situation.
When my own local authority, West Lindsey, had to move from its old guildhall to the modern guildhall, it used innovative ways of working with the private sector. When it created the chamber, it did not seek to create the old fashioned chamber, surrounded by wood and all the rest of it, which could only be used once a month. It created a room that could be used for other purposes.
The problem with creating the replica Chamber is that once we leave it what will it be used for? It is said that it will be an education centre. We have a good education centre with a mock-up of the House of Commons. I know it is only a temporary structure, but it could be made permanent. Do we really need an entire replica Chamber for 20 or 30 primary school kids? The Leader of the House said we can use it for other purposes. Every other business in the country which has to move a part of its business to another part of its premises makes sure that it can be used for other purposes. We must do the same, otherwise we will be criticised by the public, because it is their money. In creating a space, it has to capable of being used for other things.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I have sat through most of the debate and listened to Members talk about the need to start upskilling now. Will the Minister look into contacting, lobbying and working with further education institutions, including in my constituency—
Chris Elmore
And, indeed, in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and in the constituencies of all Members from across the House. That way, we can start to look at upskilling and at what FE provision is there now, and FE institutions can start to develop course plans and to introduce lecturers and so on, so that we get those skills ready for when the project happens.
Business of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
You are generous, Mr Speaker, especially because I am a naughty boy and was not entirely in the Chamber when the business question started. I am grateful to you—thank you very much. Would the Leader of the House care to come and visit me in my constituency and perhaps stay overnight? [Hon. Members: “Oooh!”] We have a spare room—it’s fine. She could then see the Cory Band, which is indisputably the best brass band in the country. It won the British open championships last year—it is the reigning champion—and last week it won the European brass band championship. While in the Rhondda the right hon. Lady could also come to the Rhondda Arts Festival Treorchy—RAFT—and see all the great acts that will be put on in the last week of June.
Andrea Leadsom
What can I say, other than that you were clearly tricked by the hon. Gentleman sneaking in under the radar, Mr Speaker? I hope you are not losing your touch. I find that invitation almost entirely irresistible, and I would be delighted to visit the Rhondda. May I commend the hon. Gentleman’s local brass band, the Cory Band, and congratulate it on its superb achievements?
Business of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue. Deafness is incredibly difficult for people to live with and the Government have sought to take strong steps to improve quality of life, the inclusiveness of services and so on to try to support people who suffer from deafness. The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important issue and I recommend that she perhaps seek a Westminster Hall debate so that all hon. Members can share their ideas.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I do not think so cruelly of the Leader of the House. I think of her more as the Wizard of Oz. Hmm. I know she dismisses the whole issue of how long the parliamentary Session has gone on for, but in the old days we used to have a new parliamentary Session every year. The Government laid out their programme and then we debated it. Opposition and Government Members had the chance to hold the Government to account. We had a new process of starting private Members’ Bills with a new ballot, and we had a fixed number of Opposition days and days for Backbench Business. All that has gone out of the window. Today, we are sitting for the 296th day in this Session, which makes it the longest Session of this Parliament since the Glorious Revolution in 1688. I think that that is a mistake. We used to get two weeks’ business in a row. Now we get just three days’ business in a row. I know she will say, “Oh well, it is because there are all sorts of important things that you shouldn’t have to worry about,” but the truth is that we all have constituents. We like to make commitments to our constituency. Some of us have important medical appointments. I have heard of male and female Members who want to go to a screening, because they are over 50 or over 45, but have not been able to make a commitment to do that. In the interests of everybody’s health, will she please get back to a proper process of having a Queen’s Speech every year and announcing the business two weeks’ in advance?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman, if I was the Wizard of Oz, could certainly be a munchkin. He would be very welcome in that role.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. He will be aware that at the beginning of this Session we announced that it was going to be an extended Session because we had a significant amount of Brexit legislation to get through, as well as a very packed domestic legislative programme. That remains the case and we keep the end of the Session under review. He talks about announcing two weeks of business. There is no specific convention around announcing the future business. It has been the case for a very long time that the period of future business announced depends on the predictability of future business. If this House were to embrace the opportunity to deliver on the will of the people as expressed in the 2016 referendum and vote to leave the European Union, we could get back to normal. We could end the Session. We could move on. We could all start talking about something else. I therefore encourage all right hon. and hon. Members to think again about voting for the withdrawal agreement Bill when it comes back.
Business of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the EU settlement scheme is being well used. It has been well established and the feedback seems to be generally positive. I am very happy, as always, to take up a specific issue on his behalf, if he would like to write to me after business questions. If it is a more general concern that he wants to raise, perhaps he could bring it up with Exiting the European Union Ministers at the next oral questions.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Thank goodness the fire at Notre Dame led to no loss of life, but if we were to have a fire in this building, parts of which are considerably older than Notre Dame, we might not be so lucky because there are 9,000 people who work here every day. Is it not time that we use this as a wake-up call? I know the Leader of the House agrees with me, but will she put on her hobnail boots, storm over to Downing Street, stamp her feet and force the Prime Minister to bring forward the parliamentary buildings Bill as fast as possible? We cannot have the French rebuild Notre Dame in five years and us still thinking about leaving 10 years later.
Andrea Leadsom
I am extremely sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman’s request. He might find traces of my hobnail boots on their way over to No. 10 over the past week or so. That prospect was not lost on me either. I was so sorry to see the terrible fire at Notre Dame. It was an absolute tragedy for the world. He is of course absolutely right that we have to ensure that we do everything possible to bring forward our own restoration and renewal Bill as soon as possible. Watch this space.
Points of Order
Chris Bryant Excerpts(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
My counsel to the hon. Gentleman, whom I am not seeking to contradict or to argue with, is that if he feels as he does, it is open to him to vote against motion 1 when it is proposed by the Government, which will be at some point today. That opportunity does exist for him. I am well aware of the consternation, indeed bordering upon disgust, of the hon. Gentleman at the way in which a number of matters have proceeded in recent times—I am referring not specifically or only to Government handling, but to other matters of parliamentary procedure that have attracted his indignation—but there is a recourse for him, and it is to vote against motion 1.
Moreover, the hon. Gentleman requires no encouragement from me, but if he wishes to vent his displeasure about these matters, he will have the opportunity to do so with eloquence and force when the Prime Minister comes to address the House today. The hon. Gentleman, I feel certain, will be superglued to his seat until the point at which I call him, when he will leap to his feet with alacrity—and he can rest assured that on this occasion, as on every other, he will be heard.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will know that historically parliamentary Sessions have normally lasted roughly a year, although sometimes they are much shorter and sometimes, particularly when there is a general election, they go on longer. We have nearly got to the 24-month point in this Session, which has implications for the number of Opposition day debates and so on. Even including the one that has been announced today, we have still had only 22 Opposition day debates, whereas pro rata we should have had 40 in this period. I just wonder whether you have had any intimation from the Government as to when this Session might prorogue, when we might have a Queen’s Speech, and when we might start the new Session of Parliament so that the process can start all over again. I hear rumours that the Government are now intending to keep the Session going until 31 October, which would be, yet again, to deny this House the opportunity to have some time of its own.
Mr Speaker
The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that I have had no intimation from the Government that they plan to bring this Session to a close. I have had no indication at all of an early—well, not early, but imminent—Prorogation. What he says is true. The situation that faces us at the moment is, in that respect but also in many others, unusual. What he says about the under-supply of Opposition days is really a statement of fact. I well understand that there is much irritation about it, and I have myself commented on it. It is a most unusual way in which to proceed, but that is the situation at present, and I am not aware of any imminent plan to change it. Of course if it does not change and this Session runs on, and there is a continued under-supply of Opposition days, I suspect that that will be the subject of coruscating criticism, not least and not only from the hon. Gentleman.
Let me just give a further response to the hon. Member for Stone, because I think it is important to be accurate about this and to try to render—I keep trying to do this—our proceedings intelligible to people who are interested in them but are not parliamentarians or parliamentary anoraks. I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 passed earlier this week makes regulations changing exit day, subject to the negative procedure. Under that procedure, Ministers make the regulations, which are then subject to annulment by a resolution in either House in the form of a Humble Address praying that the regulations be annulled. Such a prayer can be tabled as an early-day motion in the Table Office. As a matter of fact, of course, not many prayers are debated, but the Government do find time for some to be debated either in a Delegated Legislation Committee or on the Floor of the House.
As far as I know, the regulations changing exit day to match the unanimous decision of the EU Council agreed with the United Kingdom last night have not yet been laid. If the regulations changing exit day are made and laid today, the hon. Gentleman may table a prayer, today, as an early-day motion. Regulations subject to the negative procedure can be laid on any day during the existence of a Parliament, as provided for by Standing Order No. 159. So it is perfectly in order for the regulations changing exit day to be laid tomorrow, in which case he could not table his early-day motion until the day the House returns, Tuesday 23 April—a fact of which I think he is aware and which he deplores.
Given the urgency with exit day in domestic law still fixed as 11 pm tomorrow—Friday 12 April—the hon. Gentleman asks if the Government will move motion 3 on today’s Order Paper so that the regulations can be debated tomorrow. I think I have already responded to that point by saying that the Government clearly intend to move motion 1, and it would be preposterous to move both 1 and 3. The Leader of the House has made clear the Government’s intention that the House should, at its rising today, adjourn until Tuesday 23 April.
I think that is the best explanation that I can offer to colleagues at this time. However, I am very seized of the procedural issues involved, and I am by no means insensitive to the rights of Members of the House, who should have their opportunity, by one means or t’other—and preferably by more means than just one—to register their objections. For now, we must proceed. I remind you, colleagues, that we are at an early stage in our proceedings. We are not even halfway through the parliamentary day yet, so we need to retain a glint in our eyes and a spring in our step.
Business of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
Subject to the House agreeing item 1 on the Order Paper, I can confirm that the House will rise at the close of business today and return on Tuesday 23 April.
Andrea Leadsom
Okay. [Laughter.]
The business for week commencing 22 April will be:
Monday 22 April—The House will not be sitting.
Tuesday 23 April—Motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Northern Ireland (Extension of Period for Executive Formation) Regulations 2019, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the Value Added Tax (Tour Operators) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Electronic Communications (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Animal Health, Seed Potatoes and Food (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Wednesday 24 April—Opposition day (unallotted day). There will be a debate on an opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Andrea Leadsom
No.
Thursday 25 April—Debate on a motion relating to school funding followed by debate on a motion relating to restrictive intervention of children and young people. The subjects of these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 26 April—The House will not be sitting.
Following the decision taken yesterday to extend article 50 to 31 October, I confirm that subject to the agreement of the House, the House will rise at the close of business today and return on Tuesday 23 April.
More people than ever are watching what is going on in Parliament, and we now have evidence for that. In March, the number of unique viewers on the Parliament Live website exceeded 1 million in a month for the first time. To put that into perspective, the average number of unique views during 2019 has been around 300,000 a month. We might be facing a very challenging time in Parliament, but the silver lining is that huge increase in democratic participation.
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) on his private Member’s Bill having achieved Royal Assent. Finn’s law will help to protect our much-loved service animals.
Finally, I welcome the new hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones). Her predecessor was much admired, and he was a keen attendee of business questions. I look forward to her contributions in the Chamber. I wish all Members of the House, their staff and all House staff a very relaxing break and a happy Easter.
Andrea Leadsom
Well of course, many of us in this place saw our first black hole when we came into office in 2010 and saw the state of the finances that Labour had left for the United Kingdom, so we have already had our own bit of experience. On a more general point, the hon. Gentleman is right to raise this extraordinary scientific progress, and he will be pleased to know that the UK scores the highest of all countries for having the most highly cited papers in astronomy, physics, Earth observation and planetary science. We remain a leading member of the European Space Agency, which is independent of the EU and allows UK scientists to collaborate with international partners on pioneering space science missions. The UK space sector is growing; it is worth a total of £14.8 billion and employs almost 50,000 people in the UK.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises a very interesting point. He will be aware that there are a number of benefits that our older population receive, such as free bus passes, free TV licences and not having to pay for prescriptions, eye tests, hearing tests and so on. Nevertheless, he raises an interesting issue and he might like to seek a Westminster Hall debate so that all hon. Members can share their views on the matter.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I am delighted that we are having an Easter recess. At the rate we were going, I thought that we would get to Easter Sunday and the good Lord would be rising again before this House ever did. [Interruption.] Thank you very much! However, I am worried that the business that the Government have announced does not seem to address any of the issues that were raised by Donald Tusk last night. Surely this parliamentary Session has now run its course. We should decide to end it and start all over again. The Government can come up with a new Queen’s speech, which will doubtless contain many interesting things, so that we can really get on with tackling the issues that face this country, including poverty wages, poverty, austerity and local authorities that cannot meet their proper responsibilities.
Andrea Leadsom
Well, the hon. Gentleman was doing so well until that last bit. Obviously, the way forward is something that the Prime Minister needs to consider carefully. She will be making a statement to the House shortly, so he will be able to direct his questions to her. When he talks about our economy and the state of our society, he should be pleased that there is an extra £1 billion available for the police, more than £1.3 billion extra available for local councils, more than £1.1 billion extra for our schools, a rise in the national living wage, another rise in the personal allowance, another fuel duty freeze, and a rise in the basic state pension, which is now more than £1,450 a year higher than in 2010. Added to that, more than 3.6 million more people are in work and we have the lowest unemployment since the 1970s. He is rolling his eyes, but this is really good news for real people.