Business of the House

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 20th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his unopposed return? We can continue our Bill and Ben act of his asking for more time for the Backbench Business Committee and my telling people who ask for debates that they should ask him, rather than asking me. I am looking forward to continuing that, and I congratulate him most warmly. It is a sign of the House’s confidence in him that he was returned without opposition.

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. Progress has been made, and I am sorry to hear that his constituency has not been reflective of the nation as a whole, where, since 2010, the number of children in absolute poverty has fallen by 100,000. This is because of a number of policies that have been and continue to be introduced: the national living wage, which is worth around an extra £4,000 a year; the doubling of the personal tax threshold, which is worth an extra £1,200 a year; and an extra £1.7 billion going into universal credit work allowances by 2023-24. A number of steps are being taken and continue to be taken. They have been successful in the past, and I am sure they will continue to be successful in the future.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On 10 March 1987, Daniel Morgan, a private investigator, was brutally axed to death. So far, the family have never had justice because a series of police investigations have gone awry. There are many allegations about corrupt involvement of police officers and the News of the World under Rupert Murdoch.

The family were delighted when the former Home Secretary and then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), set up an independent panel to investigate all this in 2013. That has now completed its work, and the understanding, because it says so in the terms of reference laid out by the Home Office, was that the Home Secretary would only arrange publication to Parliament—not review it, not redact it, not interfere in any way at all, but publish it to Parliament. She is refusing to do so.

Will the Leader of the House please make sure that this is no longer delayed? Otherwise, it is an outrage to the family—a “kick in the teeth”, as they have said themselves. Can we have the report published on Monday? Can we have an oral statement from the Home Secretary herself, so that we can get to the bottom of this and, most importantly, give justice to the family of Daniel Morgan?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises is one of great importance and great concern, which is why the former Home Secretary set up this inquiry. The hon. Gentleman is unfortunately wrong, because the Home Secretary has not received the report from the commission. The Home Secretary will follow her statutory responsibilities—

[Chris Bryant]

No, that is wrong.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This was checked with the Home Office this morning. I was told that the Home Secretary had not received the report, so I asked the obvious follow-up question: is it in the post room of the Home Office? It has not been received by the Home Office as of yet.

Business of the House

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 13th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The question is obviously important, and my hon. Friend is right to raise it. General practice is open and has been throughout the pandemic, and people should be able to receive services in the way that is most suitable for them. The way in which people can get general practice services during covid-19 has changed; practices are offering more triage and remote consultations —video and online—to see as many patients as possible, while protecting staff and patients from the avoidable risk of infection. NHS England and NHS Improvement have issued guidance on the importance of continuing to offer face-to-face appointments, utilising remote triage and making use of online and telephone consultations where suitable.

General practice appointment levels are, I am glad to say, now close to pre-pandemic numbers. In February 2021, an estimated 23.5 million appointments—an average of 1.19 million per working day—were booked in general practice in England, of which 13 million were face-to-face, which is 55.3%. People who need face-to-face appointments ought to be able to get them.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

If we are congratulating people, could we congratulate Buffy Williams on winning her seat in the Senedd for the Rhondda last week? At the same time, could we also pay tribute to Leanne Wood? She was a Plaid Cymru Assembly and then Senedd Member for 18 years, which shows phenomenal dedication. We should pay tribute to those who are our opponents, not our enemies.

May I ask the Leader of the House whether he attended the Brit awards the other night, or watched them perhaps—or whether he knows what the Brit awards are? In particular, did he listen to Dua Lipa’s very important contribution about our health workers in this country? She said:

“It’s very good to clap for them, but we need to pay them.”

I say that because it is not just the people who have been doing the vaccinating and those who have kept us safe over the past 15 months, but the people who will have to get the NHS back into shape to deal with all the other conditions that could not be dealt with for the past year. We need to give them a boost in the arm—and that is money, isn’t it? Can we have a debate on it?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Buffy Williams on her victory in the Rhondda? He is most gracious in paying tribute to Leanne Wood; he is right to do so, because 18 years of public service is a long time and losing elections is never fun, even for our political opponents. It is worth recognising that.

Unfortunately, I did not pay much attention to the British awards.

[Chris Bryant]

Resign!

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am not as trendy, fashionable or à la mode as the hon. Gentleman—if only we could all be such models of modernity as he is. To come to his fundamental point, nurses will receive a 1% pay rise and have received some additional funding as well, but we must recognise that the public finances are under great strain after the hundreds of billions—over £400 billion—that have been spent to protect the economy and deal with covid. There are constraints on what can be spent, but there is an independent review. The Government’s proposal has been made, and we will see what the review says.

House Standards System: Confidentiality and Sanctions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

In all honesty, I have yet to meet a Member of this House who has not entered Parliament and politics out of completely honourable intentions. All of us want to change the world, make it a better place, improve the lot of our constituents, represent the communities in our patch and try to sort out individual issues for people as well as we can, and to tackle the injustices that beset humanity. Of course, that does not mean that we do not disagree all the time—that is a standard part of business—but nor does it mean, I think, that any one of us denigrates the honour with which other people hold their political opinions. Nor is it to say that we are not fallible—I see you smile, Mr Deputy Speaker; you are probably thinking, “Well, you certainly aren’t, Mr Bryant.” I hope people do not think I am being overly pious or returning to my former profession as a vicar when I suggest that we are all—including you, sir—flawed. Even the most statuesque of us has feet of clay—indeed, I have so many faults that I sometimes think that the only vaguely decent thing about me is that I know my failings rather well—which is why the House has a code of conduct, a behaviour code and a set of rules that apply to us all, which are constantly evolving.

On behalf of the Committee on Standards, let me say that in our current work on the review of the code of conduct, we are keen to make sure that we have a set of rules that is readily understandable by Members and by the public, and that upholds the Nolan principles, which are vital to restoring to public confidence in the way we do our business, and that we get the balance right between the fundamental principles and the specific rules, so that people are not endlessly being tripped up by what I can only call bureaucratic minutiae but getting away with much greater misdemeanours. We need to get that balance right—to make sure that there is justice for the individual Member and for the complainant, and that we do so as fairly as possible. It is from those fundamental principles, the Nolan principles, that all our attitudes and our behaviours should be drawn. The Leader of the House rightly referred to the desire, shared by everybody I believe, to change the culture in the whole parliamentary community, so that Parliament is always a place of respect and dignity, where people are able to do their job with honour.

Let me explain what the Committee wanted to achieve through our reports, which have led to the motions on the Order Paper. I thank the Leader of the House for the collaborative way in which he has approached this. I hope he does not mind when I say that it has taken a long time to get the motions on the Order Paper today. I think all of us would have preferred this to have happened sooner. The independent expert panel would like to have had the powers in place a little sooner. I am not making a big thing out of it; it would just be good if sometimes we were able to proceed more quickly.

First, we wanted to maintain the strictest possible confidentiality in cases of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct that are being investigated by the commissioner and considered by the independent expert panel, so as to protect both the complainant and the Member. It is important to remember that in those cases there is always a specific complainant who is, potentially, a victim, and that person has as many rights in the process—nor more rights, but as many rights—as the individual Member who is complained about.

I want to confirm for the Leader of the House that it is perfectly possible and right that, if an individual Member wishes to seek advice from another Member or, for that matter, legal counsel, of course they are entitled to do so. In some cases, that would be their Whip. Whips sometimes have a terrible reputation, but in my experience, they are largely there for the better management of the House—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!] I am suddenly popular; it will not last—and often for the welfare and care of individual Members of the House, especially when they are going through difficult times.

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

I am a member of the hon. Gentleman’s Committee, and I work with him. An issue that has arisen in discussion with Members is that the confidentiality arrangements seem to preclude Members from discussing with or seeking the help of their Whip to advise them on the complaint that has been made about them. It seems to be the understanding of many hon. and right hon. Members that they cannot even tell their Whip or seek help and support from their Whip in dealing with a complaint against them. Could he explain what he thinks the position is on that?

[Chris Bryant]

It is precisely as the Leader of the House adumbrated—namely, the independent expert panel has made clear that Members can seek advice from another Member if that is what they wish to do. It is on a confidential basis. Of course they should not do it so as to game the system or to lobby individual members of the Committee, because that is expressly a breach of the code of conduct, but Members are perfectly entitled, and it makes absolute sense, to go to their Whip to talk about the matter if they wish to do so. I urge colleagues not to use this as a means of lobbying the whole House to get support, because that undermines the whole system.

We wanted also to end the anomaly whereby the commissioner can neither confirm nor deny that she is investigating a particular case, even when the Member concerned has announced that he or she has referred themselves to the commissioner. That obviously brings the whole system into a degree of disrepute. I know that some colleagues were anxious about this clause, but in the vast majority of cases, this will mean that the commissioner will be able to confirm that she is not investigating a Member. Far too many hares have started running in the press without anybody being able to clarify the situation—neither the commissioner nor the Member—and that is an injustice to everybody.

Thirdly, we wanted to ensure that when something has gone wrong, the independent expert panel and the Standards Committee have more options in terms of sanctions than just a slap on the wrist or decapitation, which is basically what it has felt like for far too long. There are more effective means of enabling people to change their habits—perhaps the habits of a lifetime—or the way that they work, their attitudes or their behaviour in a way that aligns with the code of conduct and the rules. That is precisely what the suite of options that we have laid out in our reports do for both ICGS cases, for the independent expert panel to use, and for non-ICGS cases, for the Standards Committee to use. The Leader of the House is right to say that anything that affects the core functions of an MP would only be decided on by the House in the end. The final vote, as it were, would be for the House.

We wanted also to be absolutely clear with Members and the public what we consider to be mitigating or aggravating factors in considering a particular case when the commissioner has brought a report to us. This seems to us a simple matter of natural justice. It is exactly the same as the courts, which have mitigating and aggravating factors when sentencing. For instance, perhaps it is obvious that a Member who committed the same breach of the rules on more than one occasion or who did so after already having been admonished by the House for a similar breach—a recidivist—would face a tougher sanction from the Committee the next time round, but we thought it important to make this clear.

Perhaps it is also obvious that a Member who made a completely inadvertent error, apologised and swiftly made recompense would be able to rely on the commissioner and the Committee to treat such a breach as on the less serious end of the spectrum. Likewise, perhaps it is obvious that a Member who refused to answer an inquiry from the commissioner or the registrar, who deliberately dragged matters out, who was rude and abusive during the process or who refused to co-operate with an investigation or inquiry would face a more serious sanction from the Committee. My honest advice to colleagues—I think every member of the Committee would say this, and it is advice I would give anyone in life—is that a heartfelt apology goes a very long way towards putting things right. I think the House and the public respect that when people are able to do it. I also urge colleagues, if they ever want advice, to go to the registrar or the commissioner because they are there to help.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I have had conversations with colleagues about the role of the commissioner, and that point needs to be underlined. A number of colleagues are wary of approaching the commissioner for advice or questioning what is going on, because they worry that this eminent person will be somehow in judgment over them or hold something over them. How should the Committee begin to break down the barriers between the commissioner and right hon. and hon. Members? That barrier obviously exists in a number of instances.

[Chris Bryant]

As the hon. and be-knighted Member knows—I mean that he is a knight of the realm—when we have produced our report on the code of conduct we will consult widely in the House and elsewhere. I hope that as many Members as possible will take part in that consultation process. My impression is that the rules are now far too complicated. There are bits and pieces here, there, and everywhere. It seems extraordinary that we have two pages of stationery rules in the 21st century. I think we make it too complicated for Members to do their work, and I hope Members will take part in that next process. Part of that will undoubtedly be getting to know the commissioner and the registrar better.

I will not refer to the amendment that was not selected, but I will refer to the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). Whenever I see her speak, I am reminded of the fact that I lived in Northamptonshire when I was a youth officer for the diocese of Peterborough, and I used to drive up the M1. Just as people arrive in her constituency a great big sign on the motorway says, “Welcome to Northamptonshire.” Two seconds later a sign says, “Keep your Distance.” It was there long before covid. She is right to say that there is an issue for constituents who might suddenly be left high and dry. There is also an issue for constituents when there is a change of MP, because all the casework disappears into a black hole, and has to by law. I wonder, however, whether that is a matter regarding privileges rather than standards. The Privileges Committee cannot take up issues without being expressly asked to do so by the House. If the House wanted to do that, I am sure we would rise to the challenge, and that may be the right course to take.

I do not have much more to say, but I assure the House of two things. First, the Committee takes its job extremely seriously. We seek to be as fair-minded as we can be. We set politics and partisanship aside the moment we enter the meetings, and we strive to have a system that is simple to understand and navigate. Over 20 years as an MP I have seen that the court of public opinion can be capricious, and often delivers great injustices to Members. We strive to ensure that nobody can say that of the Committee. Sir Stephen Irwin has already made absolutely clear that the independent expert panel has exactly the same determination. Having met Sir Stephen—our Committee wanted to work closely with him—I am confident that the panel will do a sterling job.

Secondly, the Officers of the House are there to help Members, not to hinder them. I know that colleagues sometimes get a bit anxious if they have to meet the Commissioner for Standards, as they think there is going to be some kind of dressing down, but that is very far from the truth. Both the Commissioner for Standards, Kathryn Stone, and the Registrar of Members’ Interests, Heather Wood, are ruthlessly impartial, and they constantly provide advice to individual Members on an entirely confidential basis. They do this every day of the week. Large numbers of Members go to see them and seek their advice, and I would urge colleagues to do so. Sometimes when we have been here a long time, we assume that we know the rules, but sometimes the rules change a little bit in the time that we have been here. It really is worthwhile, just occasionally, to pop along to see either Kathryn or Heather to get advice. Indeed, I am keen that we should end up with a system where, if a Member has sought advice from the Registrar or the Commissioner and adopted it, that would be a safe harbour for them—in other words, a system where anyone who had sought and adopted their advice would not get into trouble for it. That is not the situation at present, but that is where we would like to get to.

I would like to thank the members of the Committee: the lay members and the Members of this House who constitute the Committee. It has been a heavy workload over this last year, and I am really glad that these motions are on the table tonight. I also thank the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House, as well as the leaders of the other political parties. I am not aware that Scottish National party Members are unhappy with the consultation that we have done with them. Finally, I would like to thank Sir Stephen Irwin and all the members of the Independent Expert Panel, who are already starting their work. After these motions have been adopted today, they will be able to do so more fully and with a greater sense of the direction of travel that we all want to go in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is important, I think, that the commissioner will have the ability to speak to people informally and, potentially, to stop problems arising if they can be stopped with a word in season.

[Chris Bryant]

indicated assent.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Chair of the Committee is nodding. That indicates that that is part of this. In the formalisation of the sanctions that this report is dealing with, there is also, as I understand it, the introduction of a least and lowest sanction, which is the word in season to try to ensure that things do not go any further. I made comments earlier about issues relating to how people co-operate with any inquiry, and I reiterate that that is inevitably a secondary and subjective issue, but it ties in at a later stage if somebody has done something that they ought not to have done. I commend these motions to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House reaffirms its commitment to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) and to tackling bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct on the part of anyone who works for or with Parliament; reasserts the importance of confidentiality within the ICGS in order to protect the vulnerable and encourage victims to come forward; notes the concerns expressed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, as set out in the Appendix to the Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards, Confidentiality in the House’s standards system (HC 474), about the operation of certain aspects of the confidentiality regime set up by the House in its decisions of 19 July 2018; agrees to the recommendations specified in paragraph 22 of the Committee’s Twelfth Report, Sanctions and confidentiality in the House’s standards system: revised proposals (HC 1340); and notes that nothing in these recommendations undermines the key ICGS principle of confidentiality;

Ordered,

That Standing Order No. 150 is amended as follows:

in paragraph 12, line 8, to leave out “statistical” before “information” and to add “and matters under investigation” after “received”.

SANCTIONS IN RESPECT OF THE CONDUCT OF MEMBERS

Resolved,

That this House notes the Seventh Report of the Committee on Standards, Sanctions in respect of the conduct of Members (HC 241) and the Committee’s Twelfth Report, Sanctions and confidentiality in the House’s standards system: revised proposals (HC 1340); endorses the Committee’s approach to creating a revised regime of sanctions for breaches of the Code of Conduct in relation both to Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) cases and non-ICGS cases; notes that the two reports propose which sanctions will be available to be imposed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, by the Independent Expert Panel (IEP) in ICGS cases, by the Committee on Standards in non-ICGS cases, and by the House itself, with tables showing ICGS and non-ICGS sanctions as an Annex to the Twelfth Report; notes that the Committee has set out aggravating and mitigating factors in non-ICGS cases that it will keep under review, and that the IEP has published a separate set of aggravating and mitigating factors that will apply in ICGS cases; notes that the new range of sanctions includes the withdrawal of facilities or services from Members, but that, where such a sanction would interfere with the core functions of a Member, the decision on imposing it will lie with the House; notes that the Committee is currently considering options for possible appeal procedures in non-ICGS cases and intends to report to the House separately on these; and approves the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee’s Seventh Report, as modified by its Twelfth Report;

Ordered,

That

(1) Standing Order No. 150 (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards) is amended as follows:

after paragraph (4) insert –

“( ) The Commissioner shall have power to:

(a) instigate informal discussions with a Member to indicate concern about the Member’s reported attitude, behaviour or conduct; and

(b) require a Member to attend a formal meeting at which the Commissioner may indicate concern about or give words of advice on the Member’s reported attitude, behaviour or conduct.”;

(2) The Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament (HC (2017–19) 1882) is amended as follows:

in paragraph 21, at end add: “Failure to comply with a sanction imposed by the Committee or the House relating to withdrawal of services or facilities from a Member shall also be treated as a breach of the Code.”; and

(3) The Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members (HC (2017–19) 1882) is amended as follows:

(a) in Chapter 4, after paragraph 15 insert—

“( ) The Commissioner has the right to instigate informal discussions with a Member to indicate concern about the Member’s reported attitude, behaviour or conduct; and to require a Member to attend a formal meeting at which the Commissioner may indicate concern about or give words of advice on the Member’s reported attitude, behaviour or conduct.”

(b) in Chapter 4, paragraph 19, line 5, leave out from “may” to the end and add:

“impose the following sanctions on its own authority:

(a) an apology in writing, or on the floor of the House by means of a point of order or a personal statement;

(b) requiring a Member to attend training, or to repay money;

(c) withdrawal of services and facilities from a Member, and imposing other personal restrictions including on travel, where this will not affect the core functions of a Member[footnote to be inserted here: “The core functions of a Member are defined as (a) participation in the formal proceedings of the House or its committees, and (b) their ability to communicate with and make representations on behalf of their constituents. If the Committee is in any doubt as to whether a sanction would interfere with core functions, they are expected to seek the views of the House authorities where appropriate, and to err in their decision on the side of caution, i.e. to recommend that imposition of a sanction should be decided by the House itself if there is any reasonable doubt in the matter.”];

(d) for non-Members, subject to the approval of the Speaker, withdrawal of Parliamentary passes, either indefinitely or for a fixed period.

The Committee may recommend the following sanctions for decision by the House:

(e) withdrawal of services and facilities from a Member, and imposing other personal restrictions including on travel, where this will affect the core functions of a Member, and where the sanction reflects the nature of the offence[footnote to be inserted here: “See previous footnote.”];

(f) dismissal from a select committee;

(g) suspension from the service of the House for a specified period (during which time the Member receives no salary and must withdraw from the precincts of the House);

(h) withholding of a Member’s salary or allowances even if he or she has not been suspended;

(i) in the most serious cases, expulsion from the House.

While it is for the House itself to decide on the matters set out in the list above, its practice has been to accept the Committee’s recommendations on sanctions.”—(Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg.)

Sanctions in Respect of the Conduct of Members (ICGS Cases)

Resolved,

That this House approves the following arrangements for sanctions in cases of bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct by Members following an investigation under the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme:

(1) The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards shall have power to instigate informal discussions with a Member to indicate concern about the Member’s reported attitude, behaviour or conduct; to require a Member to attend a formal meeting at which the Commissioner may indicate concern about or give words of advice on the Member’s reported attitude, behaviour or conduct; and require an apology in writing, or on the floor of the House by means of a point of order or a personal statement;

(2) The Independent Expert Panel shall have power to impose the following sanctions on its own authority:

(a) requiring a Member to attend training or enter into a behaviour agreement;

(b) withdrawal of services and facilities from a Member, and imposing other personal restrictions including on travel, where this will not affect the core functions of a Member [footnote to be inserted here: “The core functions of a Member are defined as (a) participation in the formal proceedings of the House or its committees, and (b) their ability to communicate with and make representations on behalf of their constituents. If the Panel is in any doubt as to whether a sanction would interfere with core functions, they are expected to seek the views of the House authorities where appropriate, and to err in their decision on the side of caution, i.e. to recommend that imposition of a sanction should be decided by the House itself if there is any reasonable doubt in the matter.”];

(c) for non-Members, subject to the approval of the Speaker, withdrawal of Parliamentary passes, either indefinitely or for a fixed period.

The Panel may determine the following sanctions for decision by the House:

(d) withdrawal of services and facilities from a Member, and imposing other personal restrictions including on travel, where this will affect the core functions of a Member, and where the sanction reflects the nature of the offence [footnote to be inserted here: “See previous footnote.”];

(e) dismissal from a select committee;

(f) suspension from the service of the House for a specified period (during which time the Member receives no salary and must withdraw from the precincts of the House);

(g) withholding of a Member’s salary or allowances even if he or she has not been suspended;

(h) in the most serious cases, expulsion from the House. —(Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg.)

Business of the House

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 11th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend has written to me on this matter, and he will be aware that there is a sitting Friday tomorrow for the remaining stages of eight private Members’ Bills to take place. As I said when sitting Fridays were suspended, I brought forward the motion reluctantly following representations made to me from across the House. I committed to ensuring that a motion was brought forward to bring back sitting Fridays at the earliest opportunity when it was possible and practical, which is why there will be a further motion for 19 March if tomorrow goes well and if it is a productive and useful session. That would allow for Second Readings.

I congratulate my hon. Friend, because he is using parliamentary procedures entirely properly. A ten-minute rule Bill does not normally become legislation in the Session in which it is introduced, but it begins a campaign that raises the heat on the Government to do things. I note that he is turning up the gas mark with his question to me today.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I have always thought that the best way to deal with some of the historical problems that the Rhondda faces is getting the Senedd to work hand in hand with Parliament as a team. That is especially true because we have some major infrastructure projects that really need financial support. We have already talked about the tips that need sorting out, and there is the Rhondda Fach relief road, the Rhondda tunnel and a whole series of drains that have major problems because of the honeycombing underneath that results from the historical legacy of the mines.

Will the Leader of the House please make sure that there is a proper discussion of the levelling up fund so that this really is a case of Westminster and the Senedd working hand in hand? Will he make sure there is an opportunity for valleys MPs to sit down and discuss this properly with the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Then perhaps we can have a debate in the House.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue. It is important that all parts of the United Kingdom are able to benefit from efforts to level up. One of the advantages of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is that it has made it possible for Her Majesty’s Government to fund schemes across the United Kingdom rather than simply in England. He is right to call for further discussions to see how this can be done.

There are applications going in for the levelling-up fund now, and there are a further 49 deals to be awarded. It is about working together as one United Kingdom. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is very keen to settle these issues, too, so I think that there may be considerable cross-party agreement among Welsh MPs in this House on the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises.

Business of the House

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend, with her characteristic genius, has brought in her question at absolutely the right time, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is sitting on the Treasury Bench and will have heard her appeal for a proper memorial for what has happened over the last year. The Prime Minister said on 26 January that

“when we have come through this crisis, we will come together as a nation to remember everyone we lost”.

While the Government’s immediate focus is on protecting the lives and livelihoods of the nation, there is none the less the need to remember those who have lost their lives and to recognise those involved in the unprecedented response.

The Government have begun planning to ensure that an appropriate commemoration can take place in the United Kingdom and will set out details in due course, but I think it is at the stage where good ideas will be extremely welcome. This needs to be a community and national effort, so if people do have good ideas, they should bring them forward.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) [V]]

I do not know whether you, Mr Speaker, or the Leader of the House have seen the really moving interview that the Welsh rugby player Alix Popham and his wife Mel gave about the brain injuries that he has suffered from playing rugby—or for that matter, the story of my amazing constituent, Adam Harcombe, who suffered a brain injury when he was attacked in the street. I know that the Government are working on this, because I found out by very secret means—well, a text message from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—that there has been a cross-departmental ministerial meeting to look at what more the Government can do about brain injury and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is now working on concussion in sport. Will the Leader of the House please ensure that when the Government have something to announce, we have a proper statement and a proper debate in the House of Commons? It is great that we are doing work on this now, but we must ensure that everybody gets the benefit of that.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is right to address this issue, which is being taken very seriously by sporting bodies, who perhaps in the first instance have the best ability to look into these problems. But yes, of course, if there is a statement be made, I will do everything I can to ensure, as the ministerial code requires, that it is made to this House first.

Business of the House

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think the whole House will want to congratulate Tesco, Morrisons and Sainsbury’s on this fantastic gesture. It is absolutely brilliant, and we should be grateful to our supermarkets, which have done so much to improve the standard of living of the British people in recent decades. They are real models of good, healthy capitalism, and they have done something very impressive in handing back the tax rebates that they have received, which they were not under any legal obligation to do. As regards a debate on where the money will go, I am sorry to say to my hon. Friend that as £280 billion has been spent on supporting our businesses during the pandemic, this just reduces the figure to about £279 billion, so I am afraid the money has already gone.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Can we have a debate on inequality? I know the Leader of the House uses the word as though it is a kind of foul slur, but I am proud to be a socialist. I believe that we were all created equal. I do not believe that poverty is a mysterious dispensation that descends like manna from heaven. It has human causes and it must be susceptible to human remedies. If we are going to talk about inequality, would it not be good for us to recognise that we should not judge people according to the colour of their skin, their gender, their sexuality, what accent they speak with or, indeed, what school they went to? In that light, would it not be a good idea if girls as well as boys were allowed to go to Eton?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Everybody is equal before God, and if we are equal before God and every soul is valued by God equally, that must also be true between us all individually. That is, I think, a point of agreement between me as a Conservative and the hon. Gentleman as a proud socialist. He is entitled to be proud of being a socialist and I am entitled to think that “socialism” is a disagreeable word. I think that is part of freedom of speech. As regards girls going to Eton, much though I might like my own daughter to go there, I think it works very well as it is, thank you very much.

Virtual Participation in Debate

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I have frequently asked from this Dispatch Box, during the urgent questions and debates that we have had on this issue from the start, why on earth we should have to do that. We are all equal; we are all hon. Members. We were all elected on 12 December, equally. Why should we have to produce something to say that we wish to take part in basic proceedings and our basic democratic rights?

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend referred to Members not being children, and my view is that it is wholly inappropriate for the Government to treat Members of the House as children by suddenly pulling business. Is that not even worse given that the Leader of the House personally volunteered to the Committee on Standards this morning that we would be debating these matters this evening?

[Valerie Vaz]

I am extremely disturbed, because I had no notice, as shadow Leader of the House, that the Government were going to pull any business. There was nothing from the Leader of the House, I am afraid, to say that the business was going to be pulled, and I find that a huge discourtesy, because he is a very courteous person and we do get on in terms of getting the business done, although we may differ completely on the politics side of it. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there were important matters to be debated and for hon. Members to know. I had a speech prepared so that hon. Members would know exactly who had been agreed to go through on the independent complaints and grievance procedure, and my hon. Friend says that he was informed that that debate would happen, so this is a huge discourtesy to the House. Will the Leader of the House please say why the business was pulled in such a way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I understand that the right hon. Lady is, as always, behaving honourably and that she is giving a background to the matter in hand, which she is addressing, but I am making it clear to the House that we are discussing the matter that is before us now, not the matters that might have been before us, had they been moved. There will be other opportunities to address those matters—

[Chris Bryant]

Will there?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. No hon. Member will interrupt when I am speaking. It is perfectly reasonable for the right hon. Lady to give background to the remarks she is making, but I know that she will now address the matter that is before us, not the matters that are not.

[Chris Bryant]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it, however, in order for the Leader of the House to tell a Select Committee of this House in the morning that he has made sure that we will be able to debate two matters this evening, and then not even to provide a change of business motion before the House or even to have the courtesy to notify those who might be involved in later debates? Is that really the way this House now proceeds?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That is not a matter for the Chair, because it is in order for the Leader of the House to arrange matters today as he thinks fit. If it were not in order, I could not have allowed the things to happen that have been occurring this afternoon. It is all in order. The hon. Gentleman’s opinion on that is another matter, and I am sure that he will have the opportunity to express his opinion if I have the opportunity to call him. While I am making this clear, I note that there is no speaking list for this debate, so I will call people who were here at the beginning of the debate. For people who have come in after five o’clock I have allowed some leeway, because the debate started without a great deal of notice, and I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) had to hurry to get to the Dispatch Box on time. So those who were here in the Chamber before five o’clock will have an opportunity to be called to speak if there is time. Those who have come in after five o’clock, I deem not to have been here at the beginning of the debate.

[Chris Bryant]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As I understand it, that means that you would not be calling me. I am the only person who is able to move the amendment—

--- Later in debate ---

[Valerie Vaz]

I agree. We do not know where we can catch it. What we are doing is exposing families, friends, everyone—people that we work with here. We are in the middle of a pandemic and people are dying. I know people in my constituency—people who have been long-standing friends—who are now dead as a result of this virus. This is extremely serious. All we are asking is for right hon. and hon. Members to take part in debates. Why should they be excluded from the European legislation that is going to come through now? Why should they be excluded from that?

[Chris Bryant]

In answer to the point made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), I have heard the same argument from the Leader of the House as well: we should not be any different from the rest of the public. I wholly agree with that. However, I think they misunderstand Government rules. The Government rules, as laid out by the Prime Minister yesterday in Parliament, are very clear. He said yesterday that, even in tier 1, if someone can work from home, they should work from home. That is the rule. The other part of the rule is that businesses have to do everything to make it possible for people to work from home if they possibly can. Those are the rules for the rest of the country; they should be rules for us here too.

[Valerie Vaz]

That is absolutely right. The Prime Minister did say that—

“work from home wherever possible.”—[Official Report, 23 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 601.]

We can work from home, we have worked from home as Members of Parliament, and other Members of Parliament want to continue to work from home, and that is being denied. We are exposing hon. Members’ families, and the hon. Members, who are travelling backwards and forwards.

I take umbrage slightly with the Leader of the House. He thinks that if we are doing something remotely, we are not working. I have talked to many hon. Members. Zoom is horrible—whatever anyone says, it is awful. You have to concentrate, you have to stare—it is just absolutely terrible. What makes people really nervous about the whole thing is worrying about being late—suppose you have not logged in on time? Who is walking around in the background? Have you got the right background? It is terrible. Are you dressed properly? We would rather be here, of course we would, but we cannot be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Yes, I am very happy to clarify that. As ever, the hon. Gentleman has made his point very well.

[Chris Bryant]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you not confirm that, as the hon. Gentleman just said that there is the perfect and the good on offer, if he votes for the amendment he gets the perfect and he does not discard the good at all?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That was not a point of order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I just want to make it absolutely clear that I would love the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) to be able to take part in debates fully. I have spoken to her several times this year and I know how painful she has found this. None of us is seeking to prevent that happening. All of us who have tabled the amendment and support the amendment simply want a few more people to be able to participate in exactly the same way as she is. If the Leader of the House would stand up now and say that he will accept the amendment, we could all go home and get on with more important business.

[Karen Bradley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to listen to what is being said and to what was said in the urgent question last week and in the statement that the Backbench Committee graciously gave to my Committee last Thursday. He could be the hero if he were to accept this amendment. It would show compassion and generosity, and it would show his courtesy, because he is one of the most courteous Members of this Parliament, who, in all his time here, has always ensured that Parliament is sovereign—in fact, he has campaigned very hard to make sure that Parliament is sovereign—and that Members of this House are heard, from all Benches.

I thank the many hon. and right hon. Members who responded to the call for evidence from the Procedure Committee on this important matter and expressed a majority view on the exclusion from debates, not just in this place but in Westminster Hall. Let us be clear: the Government motion does not extend to Westminster Hall. The reason for this furore—the reason that we are here—is that my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) was unable to take part in the debate in Westminster Hall on the disease that she is suffering from. Unless the Government are willing to look at extending the virtual proceedings to Westminster Hall, that will still be a problem. The Procedure Committee stands ready to work with the Government to find ways to allow more debates, perhaps more Adjournment debates in this Chamber, so that Members can take part—Members like my hon. Friend. Again, I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House please to think about how this will look to those of our hon. and right hon. Friends who are not here for other reasons.

The hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) made a very important intervention when he said that there is a difference about the situation here. Nobody is asking to not be at work. We are all at work. The idea that Members of Parliament have not been working over the course of the past few months when they have not been able to be here, or we are not in the full Chamber, is ludicrous given the hours that are spent on Zoom calls and Teams meetings, and the many, many pieces of constituent correspondence that we are all dealing with. In those few weeks at the beginning of the lockdown when people had such confusion and there was no certainty, the Government did an enormous amount of good in terms of the financial support and the guidance that was issued, but right at the beginning, everything was unknown.This was, as everyone says, an unprecedented situation.

Members across the House were dealing with constituents who had the most difficult and heart-rending stories. We wanted to do our best for our constituents, and we were doing that from home because Parliament was in recess. We could not ask questions of Ministers in the way we normally would by being here in the Chamber. Again, I pay tribute to the Government for the amount of access that Ministers made available to Members, to allow us to ask questions on behalf of our constituents. We are all working incredibly hard, whether we are working here, working in our offices in the precincts of the Palace or working at home. Nobody is asking not to work; it is merely that Members who cannot be here for reasons other than being clinically extremely vulnerable, including self-isolating because they have been told to by the Government, should be able to take part in all our proceedings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment (a) in line 5:

Leave out from “Members” to “to” in line 8 and insert “with a public health reason relating to the pandemic”.

Welcome to the Chair, Mr Speaker. It is good to see you in your rightful place. I suspect that I am not going to please everyone, because I have just had an email from a Philip Toler, who says: “Why do you constantly stand up in Parliament?” [Interruption.] Oh, hang on, I seem to have united the House with that. He goes on: “Why do you not express your appreciation of the hard-working Prime Minister and all his Ministers? They are only trying their best. The Government was voted in by 95% of the population and you should therefore show some respect.” [Interruption.] Sometimes the vote in the Rhondda is a bit like that, but I do not think it is quite the same. That sounds a bit like a Trump version of how elections are run.

It is a terrible shame that this has become such a scratchy debate. There is no need for that, in all honesty, because there is a very simple issue at hand: the Government think one thing and quite a lot of Members of the House think a different thing, and we should be able to resolve that without all shouting and screaming at one another. I regret the way that we have ended up with the debate today, because many of us have repeatedly said to the Government, to the Whips and to the Leader of the House that the simplest way of having a proper debate on this is for the Government to timetable a chunk of time for a debate with a vote at the end of it, so that the House can decide. Unfortunately, that is not what the Government decided to do. They decided to table the motion on nod or nothing, without consulting with the Opposition Whips beforehand. Nod or nothing is there for consensual motions. The whole point of nod or nothing is that if the whole of the House does not agree then it does not go through. It is not nodded through, so we get nothing. I must say that when the Leader of the House made his response to the urgent question more than a week ago now, I had the impression that the motion he was going to table was one that the whole of the House would have been able to live with. Unfortunately, that is not what happened. What happened was that we had the nod or nothing games on Wednesday night and then again on Thursday. We have had a version of them again today.

Today has been the oddest of the lot, because the Government Whips put a whole load of speakers into lots of debates earlier on in the day. The Leader of the House, as I said earlier, told my Select Committee, the Committee on Standards, this morning that he had allocated time for two very important debates we would have tonight on bullying in the House of Commons. He said that we were going to have those debates and then he did not move the motions for them. I think it is a shame that we are debating this motion, rather than dealing with bullying in the Palace of Westminster. It has taken far too long to try to solve some of those issues. Members were asking earlier, “What will voters think watching this debate?” They will think, “Why haven’t you sorted out the bullying issues in Parliament?” They will not be worrying so much about this debate.

It is a shame we have got to where we are now. I say again that the easiest thing in the world for the Government to do is table a motion on the Order Paper in the normal way and to allow a chunk of time for it to be debated, so that all hon. Members can be notified that the motion is be happening at such-and-such a time and they can take their own view.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

It appears to me that the House is now in a wholly unsatisfactory position. We stand to have a Division soon in relation to House business, which, by convention, is not normally whipped, and many Members who are not here will have given their proxies to their own party Whips. It is difficult to see how any view expressed by the House at 7 o’clock will be genuinely representative of the views of all the House.

[Chris Bryant]

I will come on to that point later, but there is a prior point which is really important. It is vital to the way we do our business as a Parliament that we have some business which is not subject to the Whip. Obviously, there are conscience clauses. One could argue that every single vote we ever cast in Parliament is a conscience clause, but there are specific matters that have historically been treated in the House as conscience clauses, such as abortion, gay marriage and so on. Traditionally, there has been a very strong view that when it comes to how the House does its own business and orders things, it is not a matter for the Whips.

Now, some of my best friends are Whips. Some of my very best friends are Whips. [Interruption.] Yes, all right, some of my next-door neighbours are Whips. They play an absolutely vital role in enabling the business of the House to proceed. They are therefore, in the main, for the greater convenience of the House. However, there is some business that we should just decide, because in our own conscience, out of our own thinking, that is what we have decided. I think that this matter, in the middle of a pandemic, really should be a matter where our own personal decision is the only thing that counts. It seems odd to me that we have ended up in a situation where a Government Whip can have more than 240 proxy votes—the Opposition Whip, too—yet lots and lots of people cannot take part in the debate. If anything, it should be the other way around.

I want to come specifically to the Government motion and why I have a problem with it, as it is worded. First of all, it says we must be

“certified by a medical practitioner”.

Frankly, I think medical practitioners have better things to do at the moment than to be signing people off as “clinically extremely vulnerable”. Secondly, the idea that we should have to present some kind of certificate—I do not know in what form—presumably to you, Mr Speaker, to prove that somebody has been certified as clinical extremely vulnerable by a medical practitioner, puts you in an invidious position, because you have then to decide. Effectively, you become the doctor of the House, deciding whether people are or are not clinically extremely vulnerable. I do not have any problem with all those people who are clinically extremely vulnerable taking part in debates. I think they should have been allowed to do so for some time already. I am not upset about saying that I have had several letters from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care telling me that I should be shielding—I am not sure whether this is his way of trying to prevent me from taking part in debates. He is not directly addressing this to me—as far as he knows, it has gone out to 300,000 people, or whatever —but the truth is that my doctor says that I am not clinically extremely vulnerable and there is no need for me to shield, not least because I completed my treatment for my cancer back in February. I just think that this is an inappropriate way of us dealing with Members.

The second point is that there are many people who have responsibilities for other people in their households for all sorts of different reasons, as many and as various as the stars in the sky, no doubt. I simply think that it is invidious, therefore, to draw the line in one particular place. I say to the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown)—he knows I have enormous respect for him—that, on this occasion, I just think that it would be perfectly simple for him to vote for the amendment and then we would be able to get both the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) and the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) able to participate in debates.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am grateful to the hon. Member, who I also have a lot of respect for. I say to him gently again that if he withdrew his amendment tonight and let the motion go through as the Government have tabled it, at least the most clinically extremely vulnerable would be able to participate—they have not been able to participate since March—and then we could have his battle with the Government on another day. We have had two hours to debate this subject; it will fall at 7 o’clock.

[Chris Bryant]

I sympathise with the argument. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham has expressed that argument to me. The problem is that the only people who have responsibility for the way we do our business this evening are the Government. The only people who can grant us time to have a row on another day and allow other people are the Government. So far, what we have seen over the last two weeks is that they are passionately, adamantinely opposed to allowing a further extension of people, so the only moment at which we can possibly insist is this moment.

I have heard the argument, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”—I have heard it so many times in my life and sometimes I have even made it myself. I made it myself, oddly, on the issue of gay marriage, because I said to Members in my party, “Let’s just go with having civil partnerships, because maybe the country won’t wear gay marriage.” Lots of people, quite rightly, metaphorically slapped me in the face and said, “You’re an idiot. You simply don’t know where history is going.” So I say to hon. Members tonight: the perfect is within your grasp. Vote for the amendment and the whole motion will go through as amended, and we will be happy. The Government could say now, having heard so many Conservative colleagues and others in the House say that they would like to take part in debates, that they are going to accept the amendment.

[Fleur Anderson]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

If my hon. Friend will allow me, I just want to deal with the specific issue of the Government’s argument.

Some Members rightly say, “MPs shouldn’t treat themselves any differently from the rest of the country.” I 100%, wholeheartedly agree. All too often, we adopt an exceptionalist position for Parliament, which I think our voters and our constituents do not understand or accept, but I think that on this particular issue, the Government have simply got it wrong and do not understand their own rules.

The Leader of the House said last week that the rule in the country was, if you can, go to work. That is not the Government’s advice. It was not last week and it is not this week. As the Prime Minister categorically said yesterday, the Government’s rule says specifically:

“To help contain the virus, everyone who can work effectively from home should do so.”

Everyone who can do so should do so. The Prime Minister reiterated yesterday that when the present lockdown in England is completed, even in tier 1, the rule will be work from home if you can. In addition, the Government rules specify—this is in relation to employers, so this is the responsibility of the whole House:

 “COVID-19 is a public health emergency. Everyone needs to assess and manage the risks of COVID-19, and in particular businesses should consider the risks to their workers and visitors. As an employer, you also have a legal responsibility to protect workers and others from risk to their health and safety. This means you need to think about the risks they face and do everything reasonably practicable to minimise them”.

The House can do something “reasonably practicable”, and that is to allow a significant number of Members to take part in debates remotely, because they are clinically extremely vulnerable. An additional number, which I believe to be a smaller one, could take part remotely for a public health reason in their own family or community.

I will make another point to the Government. I have felt a sense of deep frustration all year. I sometimes worry that the Government think that they are a Government of England, not a Government of the United Kingdom. I will lose some people in the Opposition now, but I am a passionate Unionist. I want the Union to hold together. As a Welsh MP, it has constantly been difficult this year to explain differences between sets of arrangements in Wales, Scotland, England and all the rest of it. Broadcasters have been particularly bad at explaining them, but the truth is that on this specific issue of whether people should work from home, the rules vary at different points in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

[Patrick Grady]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will give way—as long as the hon. Gentleman promises that he will be a Unionist.

[Patrick Grady]

The point is exactly as the hon. Gentleman makes it, because the Government continue to put a rocket up the case for independence by refusing to accommodate the requirements of all Members of Parliament for Scotland. We are specifically exempt from legislation that now prevents people from Scotland from travelling to England. We have to be happy to be specifically exempt from that because the Leader of the House is intransigent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Obviously I do not go quite as far as that, but when we had the firebreak in Wales—the Labour Government in Wales have dealt with all of this much better, delivering a clearer message all the time, but that is by the by—some of my constituents said to me strongly that they did not want me to come to Parliament, because they thought it would be inappropriate for me to do so as they were not allowed to travel. I make no judgment—some MPs felt they had to come, some felt that they did not, and all the rest of it—but the truth of the matter is that there are different rules in different parts of the country, and there will be different rules in different parts of England in the forthcoming weeks. It would seem to make far more sense, on an equality basis, to allow everyone to participate on an equal basis.

The Leader of the House denies this—I am sorry to be so obsessed with the Leader of the House, but I was looking forward to a long speech and we have barely had a word from him today, which is a terrible disappointment to us all—but on occasion he has intimated that we cannot really do our job as an MP unless we are here. My experience is that, of all my 19 years as a Member, this has been the toughest year as an MP in terms of the understandable demand from constituents. Most arrives by email, not from people physically coming through the door—several Members have mentioned that they have not held surgeries in person, but have been doing them online. On social media, Facebook in particular, I have been dealing with many thousands of cases every week. Some questions are not right—such as, “Is Lidl open?”, or, “How much are nappies in Sainsbury’s?”, neither of which I knew the answer to, but in a way, it has been a good thing for Parliament that many MPs have had engagement with their constituents that they never had in the previous year.

It is tough, because there is no point going on holiday this year as an MP, because frankly, at all hours of the day, we have been dealing endlessly with requests from constituents. A lot of the job we can do perfectly well from our living room, back study, outhouse or stable, depending on how grand or ungrand the house is.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

An example of that was this weekend. The annual NATO Parliamentary Assembly took place, involving individual parliamentarians from NATO countries, including the United States and all across Europe. It was all done virtually, and I was even chairing meetings on Saturday afternoon.

[Chris Bryant]

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and all sorts of organisations have been doing this perfectly well, fully engaging all their members and enabling them to take part. Members might say that it is more difficult for people to travel, but sometimes some Members in the House forget that the travel is as risky as the business of actually physically being in Parliament. Mr Speaker, you and all the staff in the building have done a phenomenal job in making this place as covid-secure as possible.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you advise the House that, if this debate goes up to 7 o’clock, the motion will fall? Would it therefore not be prudent of the House to cease this debate now so that at least we can have a vote and thus protect those Members who are extremely clinically vulnerable?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I think everybody in here knows exactly what the outcome is of what is going on. I do not think that we need to reiterate the obvious.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr Speaker, but let me make the point clear. I am moving the amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay and myself.

It is worth bearing in mind what Members are not able to take part in. I have heard very moving and important speeches by Conservative Members, saying that this year has seen a phenomenal suspension of liberty in this country—extraordinary. The Coronavirus Act 2020 has taken power away from individuals to live their lives as they want more than any other piece of legislation in our history. We subscribed to that because we believed that it was necessary. The Government insisted that they should require only a single vote every six months on a 90-minute debate, but the Members whom we are talking about are not able to take part in those 90-minute debates—to be honest, not many other people are able to take part in those 90-minute debates either.

If we look at the secondary legislation, we will see that, during this year, there have been 297 coronavirus statutory instruments, using powers in 106 Acts of Parliament. Why should none of the Members whom we are talking about be able to take part in any of that secondary legislation when it is depriving people of their liberty? More importantly, it is not about the Member; it is about the community that they represent—their constituency. Why should they be barred, for instance, from expressing a view about the 10 o’clock curfew in pubs, or whether their constituency should be in tier 1, tier 2 or tier 3? They are not able to take part in ten-minute rule Bills. They are not able to make points of order, which must be a terribly depressing thing for all of them—how can you live without making points of order? Ironically enough, they are able to table amendments, but they are not able then to speak to them. That is the irony of where we are at tonight. The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay can table an amendment, but he is not able to take part in this debate because of the way that things have been structured.

I say to all hon. Members, first of all, I do not buy this argument about the perfect being the enemy of the good. Earlier today, I understand that the Government Whips tried to strong-arm the Opposition, saying, “Well, you’ll never get what you want. We’ll pull the motion.” But the Leader of the House said that he would enable the House to resolve this. The proper way to resolve this is to have a proper motion on the Order Paper when all Members know that the debate is coming and we can consider the thing properly.

Secondly, I believe that all MPs are equal—the good, the bad, the ugly. All of them are equal. It is a really important principle.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Name the ugly.

[Chris Bryant]

Especially the ugly, yes.

[Mr Jones]

No, name the ugly.

[Chris Bryant]

Oh. Anyway, the point is that it is such a historic principle that every MP is treated equally that it is a terrible shame that we have abandoned it this year just because there is a pandemic. I do not believe that House business should ever be whipped. I think it is wholly inappropriate to do that, and I think that there has been a tendency in the past year for the Whips to interfere. Sorry, I have just seen my Chief Whip—everything that he has done has been absolutely perfect. On a serious note, I just think that more of our business should be done without the Whips’ engagement, because sometimes that would mean that it was less cantankerous.

I especially object to the idea that large numbers of proxies should be used in a vote, unless the person who is delivering those proxies has asked each and every individual Member—every single one—how they intended to vote. Let me just say to Members who would even consider the idea of voting against the amendment, which I guess is the argument that many of them are advancing—

Participation in Debates

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is the risk of sedentary interventions; one hears part of them, but not necessary all of them in their fullness. I point out to the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) that that is why “sedentary chuntering”, as the former Speaker used to call it, is invariably not wise.

I turn back to the substance of the points made by the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz). She did indeed write to me over the weekend. It was important that these issues were in the public domain and being considered and that the Government, as they said they would, were keeping them under review. As I also said, I was very moved by the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). How could one not be? She is a remarkable person. It has to be said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) has also made similar appeals of a very moving kind.

It is important to recognise that the Government do listen to what right hon. and hon. Members are saying. The Government recognise the strength of arguments put forward and that there is a special set of people with the most troubling conditions who, under the current rules, which came in Thursday a week past, are being advised not to go to work. That was not the case before then, so when my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham made her requests, the Government guidance was not of that kind; it had changed by the time my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford made her appeal. It is an appeal that many Members feel should be answered, and that is what we are trying to do.

The right hon. Member for Walsall South rightly calls for there to be equality among Members, and indeed there is. Every Member who is not extremely clinically vulnerable is in the same position as other key workers, which is that, as long as their workplace is covid-secure—that is a fundamental qualification—they are not expected to stay away from work. I reiterate the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) that we should expect to behave and be treated in the same way as other key workers. That is fundamental. The nation is facing this virus together, and there is not a different situation for us as opposed to other key workers.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

They are not shirking.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am not saying that anybody is shirking; I am simply saying that we are in the same position as other key workers, as I think is right and proper.

On the issue of people revealing their medical conditions, I have of course thought very carefully about that because I know that many people would not want to reveal what their medical condition is. The issue is that either we would have to have an entirely virtual Parliament with all Members Zooming in—otherwise one could say, “That person has something wrong and that person doesn’t,”—which we found from experience did not work, or we would have to have it for a very small group.

The very small group have a choice. They are free to contribute, with a very wide range of rights, in interrogative proceedings in a way that allows our business to be carried out properly. The limitation remains only in those areas of business that need debate and the flow of debate. Exemptions will be made for a limited number of people, who will have the choice whether to tell the House about their need to contribute virtually because they are severely clinically vulnerable.

If I may use you, Mr Speaker, as a case in point—I hope you will forgive me—you have brought your diabetes to the attention of people by being open about it, and some Members wish to do that. I absolutely understand that other Members do not wish to, and nobody will be forced to reveal a medical condition if they do not wish to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I hope Hansard got a bit more of that than I did, but I think I got the fundamental point. We have made the right provisions to ensure that people can come to the House and can participate in our debates, and this is a further step on this road. Therefore, I fundamentally disagree with my right hon. Friend.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I have always been a bit suspicious about the concept of normality; it has always seemed to me to be a moving feast. One of the great strengths of British history and the constitution is that tradition always adapts to reality. The Leader of the House will remember the 15th century. In 1439, when pestilence was abroad, the House of Commons and the House of Lords jointly petitioned the King to say, “Could we dispense with the business of kissing the King as a sign of our liege duty?”; and the King agreed. Is not the truth of the matter that in every generation, when there are classic moments like this one of national crisis, we have to abandon our hidebound traditions? We have to adapt to the moment, and surely to God it must be invidious to be asking individual people to declare whether they are clinically extremely vulnerable. As it happens, I have had six letters, I think, now to say that I am; my doctor says that I am not. I am quite happy to talk about it, but I do not think individual Members should have to declare that.

Why can we not just trust Members, and say that every single Member is treated equally in this House and has an equal right to debate until the end of this parliamentary Session, and then we can revise what we want to do in the future? Why on earth is it going to be right that if the Government table a motion next week—perhaps at the end of this week—the Government Chief Whip will have more than 200 votes in his pocket to be able to dispose of? Would it not make much more sense for us, at least on this issue, to have voting online so that everybody can cast their own vote?

Business of the House

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Absolutely, we are in favour of the triumph of good over evil, and we wish everyone a happy Diwali. I think that conservatism is very generally the triumph of good over evil. As regards Stonehenge, as I take the A303 to Somerset, the sooner it is a dual carriageway the better. I fully support the proposals to have a dual carriageway, though I would add that one of the great joys of going on the current A303 is that one gets a glimpse of Stonehenge. That is a benefit and is uplifting for people to see.

As regards statements by the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend has been incredibly assiduous in updating the House, coming to the House, making statements, answering questions and leading debates. His appearances here have been exactly what we require, and he has met and exceeded the expectations of the House.

The right hon. Lady rightly congratulates the President-elect of the United States, as Her Majesty’s Government have. The Government look forward to working with—

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Go on then, say it.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

What do you want me to say?

[Chris Bryant]

Congratulate him!

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I have congratulated him. The Government congratulate him, and I am speaking as a Minister for the Government. It is very important, as the Prime Minister rightly said on Wednesday, that the British Prime Minister has a good relationship with the American President, and that is in the interests of the United Kingdom. It has to be said that one person who was particularly good at that was the former leader of the Labour party, Tony Blair, who was able to get on with different American Presidents of different ideological outlooks, and that I think is a model for British Prime Ministers.

I know that the Foreign Office has responded to the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) about Nazanin and the other people improperly held, and her campaign is an important campaign to ensure that they are kept at the forefront of people’s minds.

It is of course a deep, deep sadness, and a tragedy for the families, that 50,000 have died with covid, but it is too early to be making international comparisons, because the statistics are not calculated in all countries in the same way. But the Government have made enormous efforts to limit the effect and to ensure that the interests of safety are paramount. That is why we entered into the second period of lockdown and, indeed, had the first period of lockdown. It is why £200 billion of taxpayers’ money has been provided in support to the economy in these very difficult times. Yes, it is a deep sadness, but it is not, I think, a matter of party politics, one way or another. The Government have made every possible effort, strained every sinew.

The right hon. Lady mentions my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who of course himself gave a proxy to the Deputy Chief Whip and proved the efficacy of the system, because he was able to take his proxy away and vote the way he wanted to, having listened to the debate. This is a way that is working, it is effective and it has reduced the queues in the Division Lobbies, which I know is a great concern of the right hon. Lady. I do my best to accommodate her, but I feel sometimes that she models herself on the deaf adder, and charm I ever so nicely, still no notice is taken of the efforts I have made to meet with her approbation. In spite of having made every effort to help, still more is asked for, but I am afraid we need to be here in person. Government business has to be carried through. Important legislation has to be scrutinised. This is best done in person, as we found when we were hybrid earlier in the year, so there will not be a return to remote voting.

As regards the questions about the vaccine and the vaccine tsar, and the money spent on publicity, may I say from this Dispatch Box what a fabulous job Kate Bingham has done? She deserves credit, plaudits and praise—paeons of praise—for what she has done for free. She has been working for free. She has not been charging the British taxpayer. She has brought her energy and her enterprise to ensure that we are one of the best-placed countries to have supplies of the vaccine when it comes through.

Of course, we have to tell people what is going on. There are a few nutters around, Mr Speaker—I am sure you have never met them—who are anti-vaxxers. They go around spreading rumour and causing concern to people. We need to put out the true information to reassure people. That is a reasonable and a proper thing to do. The attacks on Kate Bingham are discreditable and unpleasant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), also alluded to this issue. It is a matter that the Government take extremely seriously, especially following the Grenfell tragedy. The Government are providing funding to get dangerous cladding off homes. We are proposing the most significant building safety reforms in almost 40 years, and are committed to ensuring that people are safe and feel safe in their homes. Some £1.6 billion of taxpayers’ money is being spent to speed up the removal of unsafe cladding, making homes safer as soon as is practicable. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this question and for the work that he is doing for his constituents to bring the issue to the attention of Ministers. I will certainly pass on the details that he has brought to the House to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On disused coal tips, the Leader of the House knows well that a large part of the Tylorstown tip fell into the river at the beginning of the year, after Storm Dennis. I understand that the Coal Authority, a UK Government agency, has done some investigation of all the disused coal tips in the country. There are some 2,000 in Wales alone, but there is no full list of coal tips in every part of the country. Could we have a debate on this subject as a matter of urgency? I have a terrible fear that with further climate change problems, we will see more coal tip landslides. Of course, we want to make sure that people’s houses and livelihoods are safe, but if we do not even know the nature of the problem, we cannot work out how much money there is for it. I have written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; could the Leader of the House encourage him to see me before the spending review is compete?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman raises an issue of which I am aware, not least because my constituency is a former mining area. There is a disused coal tip in the constituency that has become a feature of the landscape in the decades since mining stopped. The anniversary of Aberfan was not that long ago, so this important issue is at the forefront of people’s mind. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the UK-wide agency, and I will ensure that what he has said in the House is passed on to it, in the hope that a fuller answer can be obtained for him from it. I cannot promise to be the Chancellor’s diary secretary.

Committee on Standards

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

I beg to move,

That, in accordance with Standing Order No. 149A, Professor Michael Maguire CBE be appointed as lay member of the Committee on Standards for a period of six years, with immediate effect.

The motion today gives the House the opportunity to approve the appointment of Professor Michael Maguire CBE as a lay member of the Committee on Standards for a period of six years. Between 2012 and 2019, Professor Maguire was the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. His previous role, from 2008 until 2012, was chief inspector of criminal justice for Northern Ireland. He will bring a wealth of experience to the Standards Committee.

The lay members of the Standards Committee play a vital role in providing an independent voice to the Committee’s decisions. When lay members were first proposed over a decade ago, the rationale given by the Committee on Standards in Public Life was that they would be

“a step towards enhancing public acceptance of the robustness and independence of the disciplinary process for Members of Parliament.”

The independent and impartial status of lay members is therefore critical to maintaining confidence in our process. If today’s motion is agreed, it will ensure that one of two lay member vacancies is filled with immediate effect. I ask the House to support Professor Maguire’s appointment.

Standing Order No. 149A requires that the House of Commons should decide on the appointment of lay members. It also stipulates that the decision should follow a debate of up to one hour. As I said in business questions on 22 October, it is only right that time is properly provided and that the House has the right to take a decision and debate a matter so that we should not assume that such a debate is simply a rubber-stamping exercise.

The House will have realised that only one of the two candidates put forward by the House of Commons Commission is named in the motion today. As I have previously said, this has no bearing on the character of the other candidate. Instead, it reflects the fact that there is disquiet in certain quarters, as well as wider concerns over the recruitment process, and in particular the criteria relating to impartiality that were applied.

That brings me to amendment (a) in the name of the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz). My intention had been to keep the timing of the motion to appoint Ms Carter under review pending continuing conversations. That motion has been tabled under remaining orders. However, the amendment seeks to bring forward the appointment now. It is a matter of regret that the right hon. Lady has expedited the decision on this matter. We have been striving to achieve a resolution through correspondence and conversations, which I had hoped would lead us to a more desirable outcome. It is regrettable that we now find ourselves debating this matter on the Floor of the House at an early stage.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

In the discussions I had yesterday, I was led to believe that the Government Chief Whip had indicated that the Government would be voting against that motion next week. That is the reason the amendment has been tabled tonight—for no other reason than because the Government were letting it be known that they were going to vote against.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It was a leader of the hon. Gentleman’s own party who once said that a week is a long time in politics and an opportunity for considerable discussion to take place.

Let me be clear: across public appointments as a whole, political activity is not and should not be a bar to appointment. Membership of a political party is an important right under freedom of association. However, some public appointments will necessarily be independent, where individuals must ensure they are separate from party politics precisely because of their public functions. This is especially the case for quasi-judicial or disciplinary roles, as in this case. The Standards Committee is an especially sensitive parliamentary Committee, with significant powers to adjudicate on the conduct of Members of Parliament. Its lay members must be able to command absolute trust and confidence across the whole House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I said quite clearly that she supported a faction. If someone supports one candidate in a leadership election, they are self-evidently supporting a faction. That is just normal use of English, which I am surprised the right hon. Gentleman questions, because he is quite hot on that normally. Any perception of partiality undermines the important role of lay members, who are there to provide a vital balance to the political membership of the Standards Committee. That is why we ask for lay members in the first place.

[Chris Bryant]

I can honestly say that I do not think a single member of the Standards Committee, whether they are a lay member or an MP, thinks of themselves as a politician when they are engaged in the work of the Committee. It is a really important part of the way we try to do our business. There is no partisanship—party membership is completely irrelevant. The only reason why anybody knows about this particular person’s party membership is because the Leader of the House asked about it. I have no idea whether all the other lay members on the Committee have been members of a political party, or were recently. The specific point is that the criterion for appointment was explicitly that party membership was not a bar, provided a candidate had not held office or campaigned on behalf of the party. She has done neither. I am afraid that this is turning the Committee into a party political football.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think that is completely wrong, and I also think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to put the cart before the horse. The House is not bound by the rules set for it by the selection process. It is entitled to challenge and question that process. That is the job of the House. We are not a rubber stamp, here merely to approve it.

I come to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). She is a lady of considerable integrity, and I do not and would not question—and would not even think of questioning—that, but the process undertaken by the selection panel has inadvertently created the appearance of a political pas de deux, because the person who was selected by a Committee that had only one Labour politician on it was somebody who had joined the Labour party to vote for a candidate for the Labour party leadership. It is the recruitment process that is at fault here, so I make the observation that we must do better than we have done in this sorry affair and that any future recruitment process for lay members should not make the same mistakes. I reiterate that had somebody been a recent member of the Tory party joining to vote in the leadership election, my view in the Chamber would be exactly the same.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The process is quite clear and it ends with an hour’s debate in this Chamber. The hon. Lady did not tell the candidates that that was the process—that is a matter for her, not for me. That is a right of this House and we must use our rights in this House; that is what we are here for. There has been no change to the process.

[Chris Bryant]

The process in Standing Order No. 149A says very clearly that the person who tables the motion does so

“on behalf of the…Commission”—

not on behalf of themselves or the Government, but on behalf of the Commission. I think that this is only just in order because, frankly, the Commission made a decision—it voted on it; it decided—and this should be a single motion coming from the Commission that should be here tonight. All the rest, I am afraid, is party political shenanigans.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong and, as so often, overstates himself. The Commission makes a recommendation to the House and the Commission motion has been brought forward—there is one on Standing Orders and there is one we are debating now. If the motion were not in order, it would not be on the Order Paper, and I assume the hon. Gentleman is not questioning the decision of Mr Speaker.

In conclusion, I would like to take this opportunity to express my thanks to the outgoing members of the Standards Committee, the lay members Ms Charmaine Burton and Sir Peter Rubin, for their contribution to the Committee on Standards and to the standards system in the House more widely. I urge Members to consider the points I have made carefully. The decision of this House is an important one and an essential part of the recruitment process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Valerie Vaz]

It is wonderful, isn’t it, when you know how someone is going to deal with a matter just on the basis of what their background is. With the greatest respect to the hon. Member, he does not know what is going to come before a Committee. The Leader of the House suggested that Melanie Carter might vote for an Opposition who were going to be good opposition for the current party, but actually, how does he know who is going to win the next the election? Nobody does, so he cannot say that she would vote for someone so that they would provide better opposition to the party that he represents.

[Chris Bryant]

It is actually more than that. The criteria that were sent out to all the candidates said that having been a party member need not be a bar and that, indeed, it may be an asset because they might understand politics better than some others. So we really are moving the goalposts, nine months after those people were invited to apply. I think that that shows us in a terrible light.

[Valerie Vaz]

I saw no bar when Tim Davie, who is now Chairman of the BBC, stood as a Conservative councillor; no one saw a bar to that. So what happened in someone’s past—and this applies to numerous people. I spent last Thursday going through how contracts were handed out to friends of the current Government—but we digress; I apologise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I confess—I will try not to overdo my argument, if the Leader of the House will bear with me—that I am saddened by this debate. All the members on the Standards Committee try extremely hard to be impartial, to put our party membership completely to one side and to put our prejudices, whatever they may be, to one side when we are dealing with difficult cases, which are very sensitive to the individuals concerned and sometimes to the complainants as well. My experience so far—it has not been very long, but my experience so far—is that every single member, both lay and party political member, keeps their counsel, is not available to be lobbied by others and comes to what they believe to be a wholly impartial and fair decision.

I have some complaints about the way we have got to where we are tonight. The first is that we have kept these candidates waiting for months and months: the process started in February. We knew that the two previous members were leaving in May, and we have been two members down now since May. The Committee is meant to have a majority of lay members. We do not have a majority of lay members at the moment because the Government have refused time and again to bring forward the motion to allow us to put even one member on.

The Government have also kept on changing their mind. At one point they tabled a single motion for both candidates. Then I was told that there were going to be two separate motions for the two different candidates but they would be taken on the same day, and suddenly we were told that we are having the debate today for just one member to be added. Then suddenly yesterday afternoon it was announced that the Government were going to table another motion for debate next week, and then half an hour later the Chief Whip—I think he will confirm that now—indicated to our Chief Whip that the Government would be voting against that motion, even though they had tabled it. I think he can confirm that.

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mark Spencer)]

indicated assent.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes. So the Leader of the House was wrong earlier when he suggested that this was going to be resolved and it was not decided yet how the Government were going to be voting next week. I am sure he inadvertently misled us.

The second point is that we have moved the goalposts. How can we ask people to apply for a job and say that there is no bar to their applying just because they have been a party member, and then suddenly change three quarters of the way through the process once they have already been offered it? The point for the individual candidates—both Michael Maguire and Melanie Carter—is that they have been hanging around for months. I know Melanie Carter’s situation: she has resigned from various different posts because she thought that she was going to be having this post, because that is what the House of Commons Commission had decided.

The Leader of the House’s motion should be the motion that came from the House of Commons Commission. That is what Standing Order No. 149A says. He is doing it

“on behalf of the…Commission”—

not on behalf of the Government or on behalf of himself, but on behalf of the Commission, and I know that the Commission is not happy about this.

This is House business. It should not be whipped, let alone when the Government have more than 200 proxy votes in their back pocket. This is just wrong. It is the wrong way to do our business. This is House business, and we have to find ways of reclaiming some elements where we actually decide things not on the basis of which party we are a member of, but on the basis of what we think is right for Parliament.

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

I just want to ask whether, if this is House business—which I think it is, absolutely—why, therefore, is the Labour Chief Whip’s name on the amendment?

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, he is a Member of the House. My name is not on it incidentally, as the hon. Gentleman might have noticed, though whether my name is on it is probably not the most important thing. When we discussed this matter in the Committee today, we decided that it was not a matter for the Committee to decide who should be sitting on the Committee, and that is why I did not sign the amendment yesterday. I do support it, though, because it is taking forward precisely what was decided by the House of Commons Commission after a thorough, Nolan principle-based process of appointment.

I think this does harm to the House’s reputation, partly because we have taken so long about it, and also because we have suddenly brought politics into it at the last minute and moved the goalposts. If this were in any other business, I am sure that the person concerned would be thinking of suing, and it may well be that Melanie Carter will think about that, for all I know. She may not be able to sue the proceeding in Parliament, but there may be other elements of the process that she is able to sue. To be honest, I would say to her, “Good luck with that.”

It would of course be this candidate that the Leader of the House decides is not the appropriate one—a very successful woman lawyer who happens to be a single mum. It would be this candidate, wouldn’t it, that is the one that does not come forward? Were there any questions about any of the other candidates as to whether they had been party members previously? No. This is the only one that a question has been asked of.

[Huw Merriman]

The hon. Gentleman and I have exchanged texts on this issue, and I always listen to what he has to say, but I rather think we are disappearing down rabbit holes. The objection I have—I have voted against House business before when it has been whipped by the Front Bench, so I hope there is some credence here—is that I expect lay members to be completely lay, particularly when there is an even split of 7:7. It really does not show this place in the best light if there is that little taint that can always be brought up. Surely he can see that point. Taking out all the rest, to me it just comes down to what looks to be fair and completely unbiased.

[Chris Bryant]

It would be perfectly legitimate for the House to decide that henceforward all lay members must be people who have never held a party political membership, and that would be one of the things that would be put out in the pack to all people who were thinking of applying, so it would be clear from the beginning. But that is the exact opposite of what the House did in this situation. Applicants were told, “Not only is it okay for you to have been a party political member, but it might indeed be an asset because you would understand the party political process better.”

[Huw Merriman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Yes.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I would encourage the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) to conclude his remarks soon because three other people wish to speak, and it would simply be unfair, in a debate in which we are discussing fairness, if not everyone had a chance so to do.

[Chris Bryant]

Am I not allowed to give way then? Okay, I give way.

[Huw Merriman]

I was merely going to say, on that particular point, that surely every candidate who goes through this knows that this House has to be the ultimate decision maker. Otherwise it is just a rubber stamp and there is no point in having this Chamber and the Division Lobbies.

[Chris Bryant]

The thing is that thus far it always has been a rubber stamp. Nobody has ever voted on this, nor, for that matter, has there ever been a moment at which a Leader of the House has refused to bring to the House the motion that went through the House of Commons Commission, so this is in a different category.

I will now briefly conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course this will not, in the end, affect the long-term way in which the Committee seeks to do its business. I am very grateful to the Government for the report that was fed back to us on the basis of reports that we had done earlier this year. However, I think I preferred the Leader of the House as he was previously when he excoriated Governments for being over-mighty Executives. I find now that he rather likes being the over-mighty Executive, and I am not sure that is good for the job or good for the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). If I were on the other side of this issue and it were a Conservative under question, as I said earlier, I would still think it was an unsuitable appointment.

The shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), made points about the panel, the discussions within the Commission and the CV of the lady in question. I have always tried to make it clear that I do not wish to question the lady’s bona fides—it is merely the impartiality issue.

There is a fundamental point, which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) raised in his speech: the reason we have lay members is that, for better or worse, the political members were not trusted to sit in judgment upon themselves and therefore needed non-political members. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden that being a member of a party is something that one should be proud of—it is civic activity. I also think it is perfectly reasonable for people to put their political beliefs behind them. The hon. Member for Rhondda was a member of the Conservative party at university; that does not remain the case, for better or worse. It is merely a question of whether the membership is immediate and close to the point at which the appointment is made.

[Chris Bryant]

I understand that the Leader of the House is saying that he is not questioning the bona fides of Melanie Carter, but that he is questioning her impartiality. I hope he is not. She is a tribunal judge. She shows her impartiality every day of the week. He is simply saying that, under his new rule, which he has invented, because she has been a party member, she cannot be a lay member of the Committee. Is that right?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am questioning her impartiality between various factions within the Labour party, because she joined the Labour Party to support one particular faction. The right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) slightly gave the game away, because I think he thinks that it was his faction that she supports. I do not know that and I am not stating that for certain, but he seemed to imply that in his joy at welcoming the proposed appointment.

The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) asked what the Commission knew. The draft person specification that was approved by the Commission in February made no reference to the issue of whether or not it was suitable for a prospective candidate to be a member of a political party. If that information made its way into the more detailed recruitment pack to candidates, that was not with the authority of the Commission.

We come to the failures of the recruitment process. It would have been absolutely reasonable and wise and sensible for the recruitment process to say that somebody who had been immediately involved in politics—not 20 years ago or not five years ago—could not be certain of being impartial and would not give the impression of impartiality to Members of the House. The hon. Member for Rhondda says that, absolutely, prejudices should be put to one side, but as I said, if people had confidence in that being so easy, we would not have lay members in the first place. The reason we introduced lay members is that we thought people could not put their prejudices aside. From a panel on which, as the hon. Lady the Member for Stretford and Urmston told us, she was the only politician—a Labour politician—we get somebody who was a supporter of a particular candidate in a very recent election. That seems to me to leave the impression, the risk, the danger of partiality.