Business of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
I am grateful as always to the hon. Lady. What she has said about Jim Dobbin was one of many heartfelt tributes in the House this week.
We will always keep the House updated—although we are entering a four-week recess for the conferences and the referendum—on developments in foreign affairs. Yesterday we had a foreign affairs debate in which many hon. Members took part. The Government will keep the House updated whenever possible.
I am pleased—it is unusual for me to say this—that the Labour party is out campaigning. The shadow Leader and I will be doing so—not together, although we will both be in Scotland—[Interruption.] Well, perhaps we will meet up later today. We will be on the same side, and for an important reason: as we discussed in the House yesterday, the decision to be made next week by the people of Scotland is not an opinion poll or an election; it is a permanent decision that will affect their children and grandchildren. Therefore, it is right that this will have such intense attention over the coming days.
The hon. Lady referred to the process put forward by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). All the main parties have endorsed the proposed timetable, including for a Command Paper to be published at the end of October.
The hon. Lady asked about last week’s private Member’s Bill debates. As discussed at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, this is, in our eyes, a basic matter of fairness. The Bill that has been introduced would cost the country up to £1 billion, but I have not heard any proposals on how to replace that money. Many of the people whom the Bill intends to help are already supported within the existing policy—elderly people are exempt and disabled people who need overnight care from a visiting carer are allowed an extra bedroom. Of course, the House takes its own view on private Members’ Bills, but Government policy on the matter has not changed.
I am pleased that the hon. Lady, unusually, turned to employment matters, but she ought to have referred to the prediction of the Leader of the Opposition that 1 million jobs would be destroyed by Government policy. Since then 1,750,000 jobs have been created in this country; long-term unemployment is down, both on the last quarter and since the election; the Work programme is helping 1.4 million people, and has already got more than 500,000 people into work; and we have more than 1.8 million apprenticeship starts since the election. That is a strong record on employment and it will be a major factor at the coming general election.
Talking of elections, I thank the hon. Lady for referring to the Newark by-election, which was a great Conservative election victory—in fact, the first by the Conservative party in government since I was elected 25 years ago, which just shows how well we are doing in the run-up to the general election. She linked that with asking, as always, about the whereabouts of the Chief Whip, who is on his way to Clacton to campaign in the by-election. She will find plenty of Conservative MPs campaigning in Clacton, including me next week. That will be another of my visits around the country and I look forward to it.
Mr Hague
I will be going to Clacton next week, and I trust that Opposition Members will be going there, because in Newark their vote fell, which, for an Opposition, is quite remarkable in a by-election. If they are not careful, the same will happen in Clacton. We all enjoy taking part in by-elections, and that is particularly so for the one in Clacton.
I note that the hon. Lady has written an article for the LabourList website, which talks about the Labour party now showing
“real fiscal responsibility and an understanding that in the next Parliament we will have less money to spend, not more.”
Will she convey that to the shadow Chancellor, or, still better, become shadow Chancellor? I would happily nominate her for that post, because he does not seem to show any recognition of having put the country £160 billion a year in debt. He recently racked up £21 billion of spending commitments without having the slightest idea of how to pay for them.
Mr Hague
The investment that my hon. Friend mentions is coming in to provide additional capacity to meet the expected increase in the number of peak-time passengers arriving at London Waterloo, and it is targeting the suburban network by creating extra platform capacity. A small number of evening peak services to Portsmouth will be lengthened, with more cars in the train, and I hope she welcomes that. I know that she will continue to make the case for investment that benefits her constituents. Again, there are many opportunities open to her, and to other hon. Members, to raise such issues in the House.
Chris Bryant
Having spent Monday and Tuesday in Clacton-on-Sea and Wednesday in Glasgow, back here it feels a bit like a Greek tragedy is going on, because all the action is happening everywhere other than in Parliament. Everything the Leader of the House announced for the future business feels, yet again, like a whole load of largely irrelevant matters compared with the imminent danger to the state of the Union, the collapse of the effing Tories, the imminent dangers that people are facing in terms of rail fare increases, and, most importantly, the bedroom tax—the one issue on which we did actually have a debate, when last Friday we came to a resolution in this House by a significant majority—which affects thousands of people. Yet still the Leader of the House will not announce when he is going to table the money resolution so that the Bill can go into Committee. When will that be?
Mr Hague
Well, the Conservative party will be having an open vote on who is the candidate, because we believe in as much democracy as possible in by-elections. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not deride too much what has been going on in this House. He is right that there is a great deal going on elsewhere, including the referendum campaign, which is crucial, as we have all agreed. However, yesterday we had a full day’s debate on foreign affairs—on Ukraine, the middle east and all matters of international and national security. When we come back, we are going to consider the Recall of MPs Bill—something that was mentioned in all our party manifestos at the last election and is in the coalition programme. I hope that he will not run down too much what is happening in the House of Commons. As he knows, last week’s vote was on a private Member’s Bill, as distinct from a change in Government policy, and of course we will treat it as such in the normal fashion.
Summer Adjournment
Chris Bryant Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) on his speech. I disagreed with every word of it. I was intrigued to hear that he is the chair of what I think he called the Government herb committee. That conjured images from my childhood of the television programme, “The Herbs”. Parsley the Lion, Dill the Dog, Lady Rosemary and Bayleaf the Gardener all went flooding through my mind.
I was delighted by the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley). I completely agree with her on the bedroom tax. I am determined that when Labour wins the general election next year, we will repeal the bedroom tax. If the Deputy Leader of the House, who will wind up for the Government, is still a Member of Parliament then, I look forward to him voting with us, even if he cannot bring himself to vote with us on this matter before that date.
I wish to raise two specific issues. The first is concussion in sport. Members may know that in the United States a legal action against the National Football League has led to a $1 billion class suit. It looks as if the money set aside by the sport will still not be enough to compensate those who have suffered from industrial injuries. That was due to the negligence shown by the sport, and the cover-up: the sport had conducted research, but was not prepared to make it public. I believe—as do some other Members; we have produced a joint report—that exactly the same thing is happening in the United Kingdom. The sporting bodies in this country need to take this matter far more seriously than they do.
On 19 January 2002, Jeff Astle died. He was perhaps one of the most iconic soccer players of the late 20th century. He played for West Bromwich Albion and was renowned as a great header of the ball. The coroner decided that he had died because of repeated minor traumas to his head caused by heading the ball. Some people say that football has changed in the intervening years. However, the research conducted in the US shows that the use of a lighter ball makes absolutely no difference to the chronic traumatic encephalopathy that can be suffered by players.
When Jeff died, the Football Association in this country promised—it swore blind to Jeff’s family, his lovely widow and his daughters—that it would conduct 10 years of thorough research, and that it would make that research public. To date, no research whatever seems to have been done. If any research has been done, it has been covered up and not made public. Not only is that a disgraceful way to treat the family of Jeff Astle, but the FA is verging on the criminally negligent in how it is treating other players who are in exactly the same position.
We only had to watch two of the last matches of the World cup to see examples. In the final, Christoph Kramer was playing for Germany when he received what was quite clearly a concussion, but he went back on to play. Afterwards, he said that he could not even remember most of the first half of the match because of the blow he had taken to his head. Javier Mascherano, one of the Argentine players, was also clearly concussed in a semi-final game, but went back on to the field of play. That sends the message to young boys and girls playing many different sports in which they might receive a blow to the head that it is better to go back on the pitch, even if they have received such a blow.
To appreciate the all-too-possible danger of a double impact, particularly to children, we need only consider the case of Ben Robinson, who a few years ago went back on the pitch, received a second concussion and died. Of course, I am not saying that every child should be wrapped in cotton wool—we want people to enjoy their sport—but the message coming from big sport, broadcasters, doctors and sporting bodies is that it is better to get back on your feet, go back on and play. Where there is good research proving that chronic traumatic encephalopathy is leading to long-term depression, mental illness, early onset dementia and possibly suicide, surely to God we need to take that seriously, and where there is no research, in sports with regular brain injuries, surely to God we need to ensure that research is done, and all the sporting bodies need to work together.
That is why the hon. Members for Salisbury (John Glen) and for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), two peers, Lord Addington and Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, and I have produced a joint report calling on the Health Committee or the Culture, Media and Sport Committee of this House to conduct a parliamentary inquiry, bringing together all the facts from sporting bodies, doctors, the NHS and schools, and coming up with a single message: concussion will not always kill, but we must take it seriously because on occasions it can be fatal. I commend those journalists at The Mail on Sunday—I do not often say that—and The Guardian who have taken this issue seriously. However, I hope the Minister—and other hon. Members, if they know anyone on either Select Committee—will encourage colleagues to produce such a report before the general election.
In this potpourri or smorgasbord debate, I want to move, seamlessly but briefly, to the issue of Russia, for one simple reason. I had responsibility for our relationship with Russia in the last Labour Government, and I worry that the Government, though they might now be making all the right noises, have not been doing so consistently, and therefore effectively, in relation to Russia. When they came to power, they understandably wanted to draw a line under the Litvinenko case, move on and establish better trading relations with Russia. I am delighted that they have now changed their mind and that today the Home Secretary announced a proper public inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, because we owe it to his widow, who simply has not had justice yet and is a courageous and independent-minded women.
We also have to be clear about the case of Sergei Magnitsky, who was murdered in a Russian jail because he unveiled corruption in Russia while working for a British company. If we already have travel bans on some Russians coming to the UK, we should surely be saying that everyone involved in that corruption and murder is not welcome in this country. This House passed that resolution unanimously on 7 March 2012, and instead of all the mealy-mouthed nonsense I have heard on the eight occasions I have asked this question, the Government should get on and announce such a ban. This is a cross-party issue. France and Germany are showing a dereliction of duty in their relationship with Russia, which will always want to pick off one country after another in Europe and end up with a free pass. We have to stand together and show that Russia is currently acting more like Hitler in the Sudetenland than a modern, 21st-century democracy.
Business of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I am glad to have the chance to congratulate Rugby on its ambition and vision, which is displayed in its festival of culture. We welcome partnerships such as that between Rugby First and Rugby borough council, as well as the other sponsors and partners, which show what culture can do to promote town centres and instil pride in local communities across the country. We have the UK city of culture competition but, as my hon. Friend has demonstrated, many other towns and cities can show how culture can be an essential part of their further regeneration.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Leader of the House has already announced the Third Reading of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill, which we will consider on Tuesday, but we have not even had its First Reading yet. Will he ensure that he tables two motions on Monday: one to allow the tabling of amendments before Second Reading, which otherwise would not be allowed, and another to allow manuscript amendments to be taken on the Floor of the House on Tuesday?
Mr Lansley
We are proceeding with legislation that is urgent. For that reason, some of the normal processes are being telescoped together. The short answer to the first request is yes, I will certainly ensure that it is possible for amendments to be tabled before Second Reading so that they may be considered in Committee and on Report. However, manuscript amendments are a matter for the Chair.
Deregulation Bill
Chris Bryant Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Field
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For those of us who are broadly supportive of the BBC and its values, it is very upsetting to see that aggressive approach, particularly in circumstances such as the ones that I have pointed out, which affect, as I said, many tens of thousands of our fellow countrymen on a day-to-day basis. The notion is put across that somehow, if we lose the money, we will not be able to have CBeebies and BBC4, but again, there has to be a sense of prioritisation in the BBC, which has a very privileged position with its money—some £2.5 billion a year—that it is able to rely on in order to make the excellent programmes to which we have all referred.
I hope that we will have a sensible debate—in fairness to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, she has presented some sensible proposals—on how our British Broadcasting Corporation will be funded. The only warning sign is that we are increasingly living in a world of pay-per-view and a proliferation of channels. Like me, the hon. Lady grew up at a time when, until 1982, there were only three channels. A fourth channel then emerged, and suddenly we had a plethora of channels that we can rely on. As a result, if the BBC is to play as important a part in public life in the decades to come, it must be wise to the fact that there will have to be changes to its funding mechanism, without immediately accusing the House, and others who wish it to survive well into the 21st and future centuries, of being aggressively anti what it does.
I hope that the Solicitor-General will have some proposals regarding what I have said, and particularly that he will ensure that the good will towards the BBC in the hearts of many of our fellow countrymen remains intact. Some of the BBC’s antics are the sorts of things that have allowed people who would otherwise oppose the amendments to hold the views expressed in one or two of them, although, as we see, they will not necessarily be discussed to any great extent.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make a brief contribution. I look forward to an interesting debate, which I expect will take place not just on the Floor of the House but will make up an important part of discussions on the renewal of the charter in 2016 and beyond.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is a delight to support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), and an enormous shame that those who drafted the original clauses are not present to take part in the debate that they began.
Chris Bryant
I do not really think the Solicitor-General should be replying to a debate on broadcasting, but I am happy to give way.
The Solicitor-General
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that we did have a debate in Committee, in which the hon. Gentleman who tabled the amendments was a very active member, and he was satisfied with the Government’s approach.
Chris Bryant
Of course—it stands to reason that the hon. and learned Gentleman was present; otherwise, he would not have been able to speak to the amendments. That is a rather redundant, kind of tautologous point—[Interruption.] No, the debate is not finished and I am sorry that the Solicitor-General is adopting that approach. The honest truth is that the Government have approached this whole issue in completely the wrong order. The amendments tabled this evening are the only way we can correct that order because we are putting the cart before the horse.
Surely we should decide what the point of the BBC is and how it should be financed, and then decide on sanctions should those things not be met—not the other way round. Under the Bill, however, before any review of the licence fee and the next charter, it has been decided in principle that there should be a change to the arrangement on sanctions for not paying the licence fee. That is completely the wrong way round. The Government have caved in to some frankly preposterous Back-Bench campaigning, and it is a shame that those campaigners are not present to see the end of this debate and listen to the next stage. The discussion is far from over.
If the Education Secretary were here and looking for a list of British values, I would tell him that I would put the BBC and British broadcasting at the top of that list. I have spoken to politicians from India who said that the style of broadcasting that we invented in this country and exported around the world inspired them to have free and independent broadcasting in their country. I have known politicians from Chile, Argentina and Spain who talked of sitting under the kitchen table and hiding while listening to British broadcasting on the radio—largely through the World Service as it was in the past—because they believed that was the only way they could get an independent source of news.
Chris Bryant
In one moment.
The BBC is not just about independent news; it is about a long tradition of being able to tell a story about British society in a way that incorporates the whole of human experience. That tradition probably stretches way back to Chaucer, Shakespeare, Marlowe and all the rest, and I believe that the modern BBC sits solidly and squarely slap bang in the middle of that tradition, and is itself a British value. The fact that it is funded by the licence fee is part of that—everybody gets to pay for and share in it, and everybody gets something out of it. I know there are people who believe that the licence fee should pay only for high-minded broadcasting—perhaps for news, classical broadcasting and the like.
Chris Bryant
In a moment.
Many of my constituents are on low incomes and in a deprived community, but they are happy to pay the licence fee because it guarantees something for everybody. For them, the sport on television, which would probably be commercially available elsewhere, is public service broadcasting; “EastEnders” is public service broadcasting. The quality that is brought by ordinary broadcasting to everyday lives is part of what people in my constituency believe to be public service broadcasting.
Chris Bryant
I will give way first to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) because I said I would.
David Rutley
The hon. Gentleman misses the point. No Government Member in this debate or in Committee was questioning the values of the BBC.
David Rutley
No, not the values. Some might have questioned some of the services, but not the values or the news services and values that are espoused there—absolutely not. The key issue is whether the late-payment approach should be decriminalised, and that is what all Government Members were keen to do.
Chris Bryant
I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman, who I know is fair minded. If he were to return to the previous debates, I think he would say that the fundamental argument made by those proposing these measures is that the licence fee should pay only for high-end broadcasting. Frankly, I think of that as getting the poor to pay for broadcasting for the rich. That is why I believe in a licence fee that is paid by every household and guarantees something for everybody.
Kelvin Hopkins
I agree very strongly with my hon. Friend. The licence fee promotes social cohesion, and the alternative would promote social division. He is making the point extremely well.
Chris Bryant
Absolutely. I am not opposed to the idea of ending present licensing offences per se, although I think there are dangers in that which I will come to in a moment. However, doing it in this order, and in a Deregulation Bill that has nothing to do with broadcasting or licensing, is particularly bizarre. On the whole I dislike Christmas tree legislation, which is what the Bill has become, and these proposals are wholly inappropriate. If we had a broadcasting Bill, I would be happy to see these matters debated in the round and in the context of broadcasting. I think we would have a fuller Chamber—better viewing figures perhaps, and not just BBC executives who are doubtless following every second of this debate.
As we consider current offences and whether they should be swept away, we must bear in mind the fact that broadcasting always tends towards monopoly as that is its fundamental nature. It is very expensive to make a programme, but it is more or less as expensive to show that programme to one person as it is to show it to 5,000, 2 million or 5 million people.
Chris Bryant
If the hon. Gentleman will let me finish this argument, I will give way.
I think it appropriate, especially in markets of the size we have in the United Kingdom, to ensure that a pot of money is available for local, British programming—programmes made in this country that reflect its interests, not just in terms of news and current affairs, but drama, comedy, religion, and all the different genres. That is an essential part of ensuring that monopoly does not always triumph.
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) referred to the £2.7 billion that the BBC is guaranteed as though that were an enormous amount of money. It is nothing compared with Sky, which has £7 billion a year; and how much programming does it produce that is then exported round the world on behalf of Britain? To what extent does it sell Britain abroad? How much does it reflect the whole of British society? It is difficult enough to get a Sky journalist to travel outside the M25, let alone all the way down to Wales, for heaven’s sake. That is why I believe we must have an alternative in the public sector to the monopoly that will otherwise be set up.
Mark Field
I had hoped to agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about this measure being in a Christmas tree Bill. I agree with him fundamentally that it would be better to have it in a proper broadcasting Bill, but the difficulty is that we focus our minds on the BBC only when the renewal of the charter comes up, which is not necessarily the best time to look at these things in the broadest sense. However, I disagree with what he said about Sky. Ultimately, we are all consumers of Sky. It is the market that decides, and if there were no market for it, Sky would not have £7 billion in its coffers. We have £2.7 billion in the BBC, which I think does a terrific job, given that amount of money, but it is right that the market should prevail to a certain extent.
Chris Bryant
Perhaps what the hon. Gentleman says reflects his constituency, but for the majority of the time that I have been a Member of Parliament, the only way in which my constituents could get BBC 3, BBC 4 or, in most parts of it, BBC 2, let alone Channel 4, was to pay Sky. It had an absolute monopoly on digital television in the south Wales valleys. Because of the mixture of platforms, the geography, the various ways in which, for instance, mansion block flats in London work and all the rest of it, it is important that we have a public service broadcaster with a commitment and a statutory requirement to deliver to every household and provide something for everybody: the 83-year-old who likes listening to Chaucer and Mantovani—if there is a person who likes only that combination—and the 18-year-old who is interested only in the kind of things that are shown on BBC 3.
That is an important commitment and we need that combination, because as somebody once put it to me, if we are to have one 800 lb gorilla in the forest, in the shape of Sky, it is a good idea to have a second 800 lb gorilla in the forest, because that is safer for everybody. The competition we have in the UK between public service broadcasting and the commercial sector is positive. We were wrong in the past to campaign against having ITV and the commercial sector and all the rest. It is right to have that mixture. The two feed off each other, and Sky is now finally learning that it is a good idea to produce programmes of its own.
The licence fee is a phenomenal success for this country. The £2.7 billion that the hon. Gentleman talks of is basically an investment in production, which is why programmes are sold all around the world. We are the only country in Europe that manages to be a net exporter of programming. That might be because of our history, but I think it is also because we have a strong BBC. I also think that the alternatives to the licence fee that are experienced elsewhere in Europe, which many people tout—for instance, Germany has a mixture of a licence fee and advertising, others have a public service broadcasting model based just on advertising, and the Netherlands has a fixed amount of income tax—are more flawed than the licence fee. To paraphrase Churchill, yes, the licence fee may be terrible—for all the reasons that I am sure people can adduce: it is not progressive, it bears down unequally, it affects everybody, whether they are rich or poor, and all the rest of it—but it is better than all the alternatives.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Chris Bryant
I am not going to give way, because the hon. Gentleman was not here for the beginning of the debate. I would normally be very generous, but he was not here even for the beginning of my speech, let alone the moving of the amendment.
David Rutley
I have been following the hon. Gentleman’s argument as closely as I can. He makes the point about how important it is to ensure proper programming and how important the licence fee is, but what we are talking about in this debate is whether it should be a criminal offence to pay the fee late or to be unable to pay it. There are many other worthy providers of great public services that do not have that right. That is what we are discussing.
Chris Bryant
It is not, actually. What we are discussing is the order in which the Government should proceed—in other words, whether they should first decide what the future sanction should be and then review the licence fee, or whether they should first review the licence fee and the charter and then decide what the sanction should be. I believe the latter is the only logical and commonsensical way of proceeding. That is why I am strongly supportive of the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland has tabled, because that is precisely what they do. It would be extraordinary if the Government were to oppose our amendments this evening. I know that the Solicitor-General is sometimes a very reasonable man—[Interruption]—although he has not got his reasonable face on now, I see.
The Solicitor-General
The debate we have been having, in Committee and with my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), is about enforcement of the licence fee, not about the principle.
Chris Bryant
I have read all the debates, which were actually about fundamental principles as well, and the fundamental principle for me is that we should do the whole policy in the round, rather than doing it piecemeal in a deregulation Bill.
That takes me to the key point about sanctions. Whatever regime one moves to—whether one decriminalises or not—one needs some form of sanction if one is not fundamentally to undermine the licence fee. As I understand it, the Government do not want to undermine the licence fee. They still support it—[Interruption.] From the look on the Solicitor-General’s face, I see that he is not so sure about that. However, broadly speaking, given that the majority of people in this country support the licence fee and believe that although it might not be perfect—they may support decriminalisation—it is none the less the best way to finance the BBC, it is only common sense for us to ensure that some of form of sanction is available.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland pointed out, we would need only a very small increase in the rate of licence fee evasion to see a significant fall in BBC income. I can imagine Government Members then being the first to say, “You can’t cut spending on programming in my area”, or “You can’t cut the regional current affairs programme”, or “You can’t cut spending on orchestras”, or “You can’t cut spending on programmes that are produced and delivered in my part of the country.” However, I say to them that if the Government make it easier for people to evade the licence fee, because they have not put in place sanctions—
Chris Bryant
I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman. He was not here for the beginning of the debate. End of story, I am afraid.
If the Government do not put proper sanctions in place, they are in danger of cutting the overall income for the BBC. On the whole, I think the idea of a summary review of the licence fee, as well as the way in which Governments have sometimes tended to proceed with a new royal charter, is problematic in a modern democracy. It has meant going through the back door of Buckingham palace, rather than in through the front door of this palace in Westminster. On the whole, I would prefer a proper debate in the round. If there are going to be changes after the next charter review and the next licence fee review, that is the time for us to make proper decisions about how we ensure that the licence fee is not undermined but that some of the egregious examples we have all heard of—people being been sent to prison for what is a minor offence—are dealt with too.
As I have said before, in many ways I agree that the licence fee is terrible—it bears down heavily on the poor, just as it bears down on the rich—but it also means that the poor have an opportunity to get quality television. There are very few things in this country about which one can genuinely say with one’s hand on one’s heart, “We do it better than anyone else in the world”, but I honestly think we do broadcasting better than any other country in the world. By proceeding in the wrong order, because of how the Government have mishandled this debate, there is a danger that we will undermine the licence fee and break something that is fundamentally a British value—good public service broadcasting.
The Solicitor-General
There will clearly need to be a mechanism to effect the change; someone will have to decide what the variable penalties should be, and I shall come on to that in a moment. I do not think it right, however, to prejudge who or which body should do the setting. The hon. Lady suggested one particular body, but we are happy to let the review look into these issues and come up with its thoughts on what sort of regime should or should not be approved.
The amendments are designed to achieve two objectives. Under amendment 62,
“The Secretary of State must lay the terms of reference of a review”
of the TV licensing enforcement regime
“before each House of Parliament.”
Those would be key papers for the review, and there would be others. What normally happens, and what we propose, is that those papers are deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. It would be unusual to lay them before the House. That would be the normal and best way forward, and it would achieve the same effect as the amendment—that is, it would ensure that the House of Commons was fully aware of the details.
Amendment 63 looks to ensure that the power to decriminalise the failure to have a TV licence via secondary legislation, either by replacing the criminal regime with a civil regime, or by enabling the imposition of civil penalties for such offences, would not be exercised until after the conclusion of the charter process. As previously mentioned, this power would need to be exercised in the light of the review’s findings, and considering the full impacts, costs and benefits to licence payers, to the court system—where, as the hon. Lady said, changes are being made—and to businesses of any changes to the enforcement regime. That would be considered in the context of the charter review.
At this stage, it would be premature to put restrictions on the timing of when the power may be exercised, given that the charter review has not yet started, and the Government have not set out the detail of the process and the timing. The Government therefore resist the amendments on the following grounds. First, the key papers will be deposited in the Library in the normal way and, secondly, we do not want to restrict what should or could happen, in terms of decriminalisation, by aligning the legislation with the timing of the charter review, although the legislation would be in the context of the review.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) made the point that we are living in a changing world. That is true, both as regards the courts and how they go about enforcing, and about the media and broadcasting world. It is also true in respect of how we look at enforcement. Given that so many public services have civil enforcement and that it can be effective, it is certainly right, I think, at this point to have a review, and to try to move away from the aggressive approach that my hon. Friend mentioned. The point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), and I have encountered the issue in my constituency postbag and at surgeries. Elderly people who feel that they have paid their licence fee—they often have—can be threatened with bills, letters about going to court and so forth, yet it is often the TV licensing authorities that have made the mistakes. A civil approach, where at least the threat of court is not frightening elderly, vulnerable and poor people, might be a better way forward. It is certainly something worth reviewing. On the issue of excellence and free markets, it is right that both can deliver.
Chris Bryant
I got a bit confused with all the different reviews we seem to be talking about. We are talking about a review of the charter, which is coming along; and a review of the system of sanctions, which may lead to recommendations on what needs to change and on the use of the secondary legislation included in the Bill. All I am saying is that the latter should not come before the former.
The Solicitor-General
I hope the hon. Gentleman would accept that we are where we are. That may not be novel, but it is true. [Interruption.] It does. The Bill had within its scope the enforcement arrangements for the licence fee. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire—not me—was concerned about the issue, which garnered considerable support in the House. He was persuasive in saying that it was right to review this area and take the powers at this convenient opportunity, in case the review comes to the same conclusion as him. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda is very experienced in these matters and has had a role in the leadership of House operations, so he understands these things. This is not such a novel and surprising thing. It is actually a good opportunity to tackle an issue that has arisen in Parliament.
Chris Bryant
What I think I understand by that—I hope the Solicitor-General will confirm whether I am right, or will correct me if I have it wrong—is that his Government would or could bring in and use the secondary legislation before the charter review happened. Is that his intention?
The Solicitor-General
It is certainly not the intention to do anything that does not take into account the full context—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman laughs, but there is a full context to the charter review. It is difficult when the process has not been set out and nobody is aware of the full details, so one needs to be wary of tying one’s hands too much. All I am saying is that some commitments have been made about the time scale for the review; that is in the legislation. We know when the charter review will take place, and we know that nothing will happen until the review has been completed, taking into account all the various points I have made. That should satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland mentioned variable fees; they are provided for in the Government amendments, which also deal with the question of extent and the Crown dependencies. I commend Government amendments 14 and 15 and 20 and 22, and urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Business of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is right that vulnerable people and their families who regularly have to attend hospital are hit hardest by parking charges. That is why it is most important that hospitals use their discretion and the kind of plan the NHS Confederation has for offering concessions to those who have to attend regularly for treatment or to visit patients. As far as raising resources for that is concerned, the money available for the health service is there for the treatment of patients. I have always made it clear that my personal view is that we should, wherever possible, deploy those resources for the direct benefit of patient care, rather than diverting it to subsidise parking.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
May we have a debate on how to win friends and influence people in Europe? The Leader of the House could lead it so that we could judge whether he would be any good as an EU commissioner. More importantly, he could explain to us why on earth Conservative MEPs have today joined forces with the AfD party in Germany, expressly against the wishes of their own party leader.
Mr Lansley
I think that the hon. Gentleman’s question is in one sense presumptuous. As far as winning friends and influencing people in Europe is concerned, that is exactly what the Prime Minister is doing, and with the support of the party leaders. The position he has taken, which is one of principle, is that under the treaties the European Council has the responsibility to put forward the President of the Commission. That should not be pre-empted by the European Parliament. He has set that out and the other party leaders absolutely support him. It is clear that Heads of Government across Europe support that principle.
Business of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I am sure that I have had the same experience as many other Members of reaching that part in my tour for constituents visiting the Palace and pointing out the tiles that are not in the proper formation. It was a way of enabling us to recall that event at that spot, but I will, if I may, discuss further with the House authorities what their thinking is in this regard and whether we can commemorate that unique event, unhappy as it was.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
If Parliament prorogues early, which seems to be in the mind of the Leader of the House, it will be impossible for this House to be summoned, even if the Prime Minister wants it, even if the Leader of the House wants it, even if 649 Members of this House write to the Speaker and demand it, even if the Clerk of the House wants it. We will not be able to sit for three weeks, and during that time, first, there will be elections in Ukraine, which could well be an important flashpoint for NATO troops, let alone anybody else; and, secondly, the Prime Minister will have to decide who will be the British Commissioner, and how Britain will vote on replacements for Mr Van Rompuy and for the President of the European Commission. Would it not be better if we did not prorogue until the day before the Queen’s Speech, so that it was available for us to summon the House if necessary, to hold the Government to account?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman bases his proposition on the idea that we will prorogue early, and we have no intention of proroguing unless and until all the business that requires to be transacted in this Session has been completed.
Parliamentary Standards
Chris Bryant Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Lansley
I am not a lawyer and I bow to the knowledge of my right hon. and learned Friend. I think he is absolutely right about that. From my point of view, it is a very practical question. Let me repeat: if we were in a position in which the commissioner, constituted not as part of the role of the Select Committee and under the Standing Orders of this House but separately, were trying to effect investigations in a similar way while being open to legal and procedural challenges, as described by my right hon. and learned Friend, his job would be made much harder.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I have complained many times about the media and the way in which it has operated over the years in relation to Parliament, but I say to Members that there is no point in railing against it on this particular issue. The truth is that the parliamentary system of self-regulation and semi-self-regulation has been on trial in the court of public opinion for a considerable period, and for most of our constituents it has been found wanting. I do not want us suddenly to change all the rules and chase popularity—that would be as foolish as staying put—but surely we must keep under review the operation of the system not only in this House but in the other House, because this is about the whole political system, and, frankly, there is as much dodginess down the other end of the corridor as there might be down this one.
Mr Lansley
I am not sure whether I should pursue questions relating to the other House. That is a matter for the Lords rather than for us. The hon. Gentleman makes a point. I do not think I was seeking to blame the media. I think I was saying quite openly that we take it on our own shoulders. If we cannot communicate the facts to our constituents through the media and otherwise, we should take it on our own shoulders that we have failed in that respect. What I do say is that we should be frank and honest with ourselves. We are in transition between scrutiny of expenses as occurred before May 2010, where there are continuing legacy cases, and the new system from May 2010 onwards. The sooner we can resolve any remaining legacy cases, of which I hope there are very few, and move to a system that is based on the legislation brought into effect in May 2010, the better it will be.
Business of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I am very interested in this subject, because I often use, as it were, that road—
Mr Lansley
It is very helpful to have the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber. We would all fall into error without him, would we not? We fall into error with him, actually.
I travel up the M6 on my way to Anglesey on the old Telford road, and it is frustrating not to be able to make the connection between the M54 and the M6. I will speak to my colleagues at the Department for Transport, and I shall be interested to hear what they have to say.
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend will know that I am not in a position to anticipate the contents of the Queen’s Speech.
Mr Lansley
I was interested in what Tim Berners-Lee had to say. My hon. Friend will recognise that it is a legislative challenge to contemplate such a thing, but it is important to understand how we can secure the rights of people using the internet and the protections they are looking for while at the same time making sure that it is the bastion of freedom I think it was always intended to be.
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is right; many Members will be very disappointed by this situation, particularly given that, not very long ago, the Leader of the Opposition was talking about the ethics and responsibility of the Co-op—it is a pity that it came to all this. Many of us have a sense that we are having to deal with so many of the abuses in the banking system in the past. The Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 will be very important in that respect, and I hope that some of the principles that this Government are putting in place for future conduct in the banking system will be fully embraced in the governance of the Co-op.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
All the scientific evidence now agrees that concussion can be fatal, yet the Rugby Football Union, the Welsh Rugby Union, the Football Association, the premiership and the governing bodies of many of the other sports in this country are in complete denial about the danger that is posed to many of their players, particularly young players. I do not want a debate on this, because the danger is too serious; I want the Leader of the House, now that we are getting on so well, to organise, with me, the setting up of a parliamentary commission of inquiry into concussion in sport, so that we can save people’s lives.
Mr Lansley
I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman that. I recognise the problem; obviously, I had a health interest over many years, and on a number of occasions I remember neurologists describing some of the difficulties to me, and I think that some of those doctors have been at the forefront of making the case to some of the sporting bodies that the hon. Gentleman talks about. If I may, I will refer the issue to my friends at both the Department of Health and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to see if they can facilitate a response to his points.
Business of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions would welcome the opportunity to come to the Dispatch Box on that subject. He might well say, as I do, that it is lunacy for the Council of Europe to suggest that welfare payments need to increase when we paid out £204 billion in benefits and pensions last year alone. Millions of people find that the welfare system in this country provides a valuable and fair safety net when they need it most—not least pensioners, who benefit from a triple lock that now represents the highest share of earnings received by pensioners in their state pension for more than 20 years.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I remember the days when the Leader of the House used to say that there ought preferably to be two full days on Report, or at least a day on which there is no statement. Today, a Thursday, is the one day when there will always be a business statement. It is the shortest day, and the most difficult day on which to have proper debate. Why on earth are we having the whole of the Report stage of the Immigration Bill in one afternoon? Since he has effectively conspired with the Chief Whip to make sure that their colleagues do not get to debate all the amendments, will he congratulate the Speaker on stitching him up like a kipper?
Mr Lansley
Under the previous Government—indeed, when the hon. Gentleman was Deputy Leader of the House—it was much less common for Bills to have two days on Report, while it was more common to have programme motions to insert knives into debates. As far as I am concerned, we have allocated enough time: Thursday is a normal sitting day—we start two hours earlier, and we finish two hours earlier—and it is entirely normal for questions, such as the business question, to be asked.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
For 33 years, British lecturers working in Italy have been discriminated against in their employment rights and pay. The Italian Government have ignored six European Court of Justice rulings against them on the issue, but at the end of last year the lecturers, known as the lettori, had some hope when the Italian Foreign and Education Ministers said that they were looking for a solution at last. May we have a statement from the Foreign Office about how that long-running issue might be resolved soon?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend does indeed ask a very good question, and an interesting one. If I may, rather than detain the House now, I will ask my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Foreign Office to respond to him. I will be interested in the reply.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
May I begin by congratulating you on your double celebration this week, Mr Speaker—not just an honorary degree from City university but, more importantly, an honorary doctorate from De Montfort university, Leicester, which it was delighted to hand you?
Keith Vaz
I have learned well from my hon. Friend.
On the subject of education, may I ask the Leader of the House when we can have an urgent statement from the International Development Secretary about the Government’s decision to withdraw from the Government of Yemen £14 million of funding to help with their education system? We do not want Yemen to become another Syria, and the withdrawal of that funding is causing serious problems.
Business of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I know that my hon. Friend was in the Chamber for Energy and Climate Change questions, so she will have heard about some of the essentials of what a regulatory road map for fracking licences would look like. I know that Members are seeking opportunities for debates through the Backbench Business Committee, and I am sure that the House will continue to consider this issue.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I was a bit surprised by the Leader of the House’s answer to the question about the Queen’s Speech. There is a major innovation here because, for the first time ever, the Government have delayed the local elections until 22 May—the date to which the European elections have been brought forward—and the right hon. Gentleman has already announced the date on which we go into recess as 22 May, meaning that the only way of having the Queen’s Speech in May would be to hold it during purdah. Surely he can just rule out bringing Her Majesty here and tying her into party politics by having the Queen’s Speech during an election period.
Mr Lansley
Given that I have not made any announcement about the date of the Queen’s Speech, everything that the hon. Gentleman has said is pure speculation.