Achieving Economic Growth
Debate between Mark Fletcher and Chris Bryant(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Five thousand one hundred and fifty-six people were admitted to hospital between September last year and February this year with malnutrition in England alone. That is more than in the whole of 2010. The number of people being admitted with scurvy has doubled in the past 10 years, and we are meant to be the sixth, or sometimes the fifth, wealthiest country in the world. We have inflation running at 9%, and for the poorest families it is at 10.9%, because more of their money is spent on food and on energy, where inflation is higher. They are getting a rougher deal than anybody else. That is my constituents.
The Government answer so far is £200. They call it a gift, but it is not; it is a loan. It actually puts up next year’s bills by even more. We also have the more than £1,000 cut from universal credit. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) is absolutely right: of course we should be restoring the £20 a week on universal credit, and we have to do more for pensioners who are on fixed incomes as well.
The Government have said, “Get a better paid job”—oh yes, it is easy, isn’t it, just getting a better paid job—or they have told us, “Get a different job”, or, “Get more hours.” Well, it is just not that simple, especially if someone has caring responsibilities. Incidentally, one of the cheapest deals that the Government get is free carers in the country. The Government say, “Shop more carefully for value brands.” Do Ministers honestly not understand how ordinary people do their shopping every week? That is what they have been doing for ages, and they are not deciding which brand; they are deciding whether to buy anything at all.
Drive around on a bus all day just so that you do not have to pay the electricity bill—that seemed to be the Prime Minister’s answer just before the local elections. Now his new version is to cut the civil service by 91,000. Well, I guess there will be even fewer people sorting out the Passport Office. I do not know about anybody else’s, but my office is inundated with people saying, “I’ve got to go to a funeral”, or “I’ve got to go to a wedding”, or, “I’ve got a holiday that’s been planned and I won’t get any of the money back if I don’t have my passport by next Thursday, and I put the application in more than three months ago.” I am sorry, but cutting civil servants by 91,000 does not always go well. The one that really amuses me is the Prime Minister’s latest version, which is, “Let them eat foie gras.” We are allowed to have foie gras because apparently it is not Conservative to stop people maltreating animals so as to get a more exciting diet.
I do not think this is a Gracious Speech. It is so flimsy, it barely counts as a gracious intervention, to be honest. It is so threadbare, it barely covers the Government’s dignity. It is nothing more than a letting out of air. It is a tired sigh, a long yawn, a tedious exhalation, a great big meh of a Queen’s Speech.
There is no plan, no project, no leadership, no ideas, no programme for Government in here. Some of the so-called Bills are little more than glorified clauses. Great Governments give us really significant legislative programmes—measures such as the Reform Act, the abolition of slavery Act, the NHS Act, the minimum wage Act. What do we get here? The Harbours (Seafarers’ Remuneration) Bill. Of course it is good, but in relation to P&O this is the definition of slamming the door shut after the horse has bolted. Why is there not a proper Bill that would ban fire and rehire in its totality?
There is a load of “Groundhog Day” Bills that were promised in last year’s Queen’s Speech and we are apparently meant to have completely forgotten, such as the High Speed Rail (Crewe—Manchester) Bill, which was promised last year but never happened, and the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill for 5G, which was also promised last year but never happened. I am really keen on the Bill to counter state threats, because we need to update the laws on espionage in this country, but that too was promised last year and never happened.
Chris Bryant
I will not, because I am looking forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman’s speech later. I am sure it will be absolutely magnificent.
There is also a mental health Bill that was promised last year and still has not come into being. A long overdue Bill is the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill. I have been arguing for such a Bill for a long time. In 2018, there was an opportunity to introduce all the measures that I guess we might have by the end of this legislative Session, but Companies House still says on its website, “Companies House does not verify the accuracy of the information filed.” So when we read that Boris Johnson Ltd was dissolved on 5 January 2021, we do not know whether that is true. We might like it to be true, but we do not know whether it is. Nor, for that matter, do we know for sure that Big Boris’s Bouncing Bonanza Ltd was dissolved on 1 February 2022. It is listed on Companies House, but we do not know whether it is true.
Where is the Bill on seizing assets? It is great that we freeze assets of those who are sanctioned for their participation, involvement or engagement in Putin’s regime, but there is no provision to seize assets, which is what we really need to do and which other countries are doing.
There are all the twaddle Bills—complete and utter twaddle. My favourite is the Human Rights Bill, which either will be compliant with the European convention on human rights, in which case it is completely and utterly useless, or will not comply with the European convention, in which case it will presage the UK departing both the convention and the Council of Europe and is therefore an act of self-harm.
Then there is the Northern Ireland protocol Bill. I am really looking forward to the day when someone in the Government finds out who actually signed the Northern Ireland protocol. That is going to be a really good day. This is what I worry about: we have been preaching, quite rightly, to Vladimir Putin and President Xi about abiding by international law, yet barely a few years after we signed up to a treaty, we want to tear it up. The only person who is laughing about all this is President Putin.
We have the Bill to privatise Channel 4, coming from a Culture Secretary who did not know that Channel 4 does not receive public funds, who did not know that Channel 5 has always been a private body, and who told the Salvation Army magazine The War Cry,
“I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be... I am just a conduit for God”.
I have to say I worry about people like that bringing in legislation.
I do not think that this Queen’s Speech addresses any of the problems of my constituents. They are choosing between heating and eating, they worry about whether they will be able to pay the rent, they worry about their family—and we still have not addressed any of the issues in the NHS. I had cancer three years ago, and I was told that I probably had less than a year to live. I know how important early diagnosis is. At the beginning of covid, we had a 4.4 million backlog of people waiting for surgery; we now have a 6.1 million backlog, and still I see no answer to how they can get the treatment they need to save their lives. That is why I say this is a meh.
Committee on Standards: Members’ Code of Conduct Review
Debate between Mark Fletcher and Chris Bryant(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant
There has been confusion about that in the past, because we have not tended to encourage Members to register all their unremunerated interests whereas, oddly enough, Ministers do have to register them in the ministerial register of interests. I think it would be better if we just registered everything. There was a tendency for Members to say, “By the way, I’m the chair of the village hall committee,” which I am perfectly relaxed about. Why not put it all out there? I think it would be easier for everybody, because there would be no debate and it would make it simpler.
On the issue of second jobs, as the Committee has heard in evidence, many people see it all in a black and white way. They say, “MPs get paid more than double the average wage,”, “You’re in the top 5% of earners,”, “Why isn’t one job enough for you?”, and, “When you take on second jobs, what on earth do you think the corporations are buying other than your influence and the letters ‘MP’?”.
However, even people who say that we should ban all second jobs row back a little when you put some specifics to them. A&E nurse? “Fine.” GP? “OK.” Helping out on a family farm? “Yes, of course.” Running a family firm just to keep it in business? “All right.” A bit of broadcasting or writing? “Well, maybe, if you must.” Chairing a charitable board or a university? “Yeah, yeah”—and so it goes on.
Some have suggested that we should have a list of acceptable posts that MPs can take on, or that we should empower the Committee or the Commissioner to approve any outside interests. All of us on the Committee think that posts involving parliamentary advice should definitely be banned, because that is a clear conflict of interests, but I am concerned that introducing some of the suggestions would lead to the Committee making entirely subjective decisions which should really be made by voters, not by anybody else.
This leaves us with a difficulty. We all know when someone is swinging the lead and devoting far more time and energy to their other work than to Parliament. We see it—we know better than anyone else when being an MP has become the second job rather than the first—but perhaps we, as parliamentarians, should be talking more to our colleagues about that, and the political parties should be doing more in that field.
Some, including the Committee on Standards in Public Life, have said that we should come up with a “reasonable” amount of time that an MP could spend in a year, or a week or a month, on an outside interest, or a “reasonable” amount of money that they should be allowed to earn. The Committee—I think—is not yet convinced of that.
Chris Bryant
I see some nodding. For a start, I do not know how it could be policed. Some have suggested that MPs should fill in timesheets, but I cannot see that happening. Moreover, it seems invidious to tackle an MP’s earned income but not their unearned income, for instance from shareholdings or trusts.
Every constituency is different; every MP is different; and while the political parties should pay a greater role in turfing out those who are swinging the lead, in the end I think that that is what the ballot box is there for.
Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Amendment of Schedule 10) (No. 2) Regulations 2021
Debate between Mark Fletcher and Chris Bryant(2 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I thought the Minister started admirably with the first half of his first sentence, when he said that it was a delight to sit under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. It then went all horribly wrong.
Chris Bryant
It did, because his next sentence was, “I beg to move that we approve this measure.” That is not what we are considering; we are only considering whether we have considered the matter.
I have a problem with secondary legislation, and it is an important point not least because we have considered so many pieces of secondary legislation in the past 18 months. I understand that there has been a pandemic but no other country in Europe, or anywhere else in the world, has used so much secondary legislation, which has gone through effectively on the nod, as we have in the UK. The problem with secondary legislation is that even if every single member of this Committee were to decide to vote against it, including the Minister, it would none the less go through, because we had “considered the matter” . It is just a fact that we would have considered the matter. I just wish that Ministers would get into their heads that we need a proper legislative process in this country. We have far too extensive use of secondary legislation and Henry VIII powers and it is time that we rolled back to legislating properly.
I specifically asked the Minister how he knows whether this is the right thing to do. Of course, the regulations say:
“Further to section 22(1) of that Act, the Secretary of State has considered the effect of these Regulations on persons likely to be affected by them.”
However, he just said that he has no idea whether the process we have been through has been useful. He thinks it might have been, but he does not know—he has no evidence to bring before us.
The regulations continue:
“Further to section 22(2) of that Act, the Secretary of State is satisfied that…the need for the provision made by these Regulations is urgent”.
The Minister has not proved that to the Committee in any shape or form. They then say that
“the provision made by these Regulations is proportionate to the purpose for which it is made”.
Again, he cannot assert that because he has no evidence on which the regulations are based.
The Minister referred to the end of covid and the Government successfully taking us through the process as if, in July, liberty day—whatever the Prime Minister called it—suddenly meant that we were all free and there was no need for any further restrictions. That we now have the highest level of infections of any country in Europe and the highest number of deaths due to covid should suggest to the Government that we are not quite through this yet. The Minister might say, “That’s one of the reasons why we still brought forward this legislation,” and that is undoubtedly why most of us would not want to oppose it, but I have important questions for him.
Why are the regulations extending the relevant period only to 31 March 2022? Is there a reason, or is it just sticking a finger in the air and saying, “Well, that feels like a sensible date”? I note that that is a few days short of the normal financial year—certainly the tax year. I wonder whether that is the right date.
In the schedule that will become the new schedule 10 to the Act, paragraph (2)(c) refers to “excluded debt”. It may be that I am being stupid and that I do not know the legislation as well as I should, but will the Minister tell us what “excluded debt” is? Finally, and again this may be because I am stupid and do not understand—I thought that might unite the Committee—I note that the territorial extent of the regulations is England, Wales and Scotland. Why is Northern Ireland not included? Of course, we have considered the regulations, but we are not approving them.
Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Amendment of Schedule 10) (No. 2) Regulations 2021
Debate between Mark Fletcher and Chris Bryant(2 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I thought the Minister started admirably with the first half of his first sentence, when he said that it was a delight to sit under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. It then went all horribly wrong.
Chris Bryant
It did, because his next sentence was, “I beg to move that we approve this measure.” That is not what we are considering; we are only considering whether we have considered the matter.
I have a problem with secondary legislation, and it is an important point not least because we have considered so many pieces of secondary legislation in the past 18 months. I understand that there has been a pandemic but no other country in Europe, or anywhere else in the world, has used so much secondary legislation, which has gone through effectively on the nod, as we have in the UK. The problem with secondary legislation is that even if every single member of this Committee were to decide to vote against it, including the Minister, it would none the less go through, because we had “considered the matter” . It is just a fact that we would have considered the matter. I just wish that Ministers would get into their heads that we need a proper legislative process in this country. We have far too extensive use of secondary legislation and Henry VIII powers and it is time that we rolled back to legislating properly.
I specifically asked the Minister how he knows whether this is the right thing to do. Of course, the regulations say:
“Further to section 22(1) of that Act, the Secretary of State has considered the effect of these Regulations on persons likely to be affected by them.”
However, he just said that he has no idea whether the process we have been through has been useful. He thinks it might have been, but he does not know—he has no evidence to bring before us.
The regulations continue:
“Further to section 22(2) of that Act, the Secretary of State is satisfied that…the need for the provision made by these Regulations is urgent”.
The Minister has not proved that to the Committee in any shape or form. They then say that
“the provision made by these Regulations is proportionate to the purpose for which it is made”.
Again, he cannot assert that because he has no evidence on which the regulations are based.
The Minister referred to the end of covid and the Government successfully taking us through the process as if, in July, liberty day—whatever the Prime Minister called it—suddenly meant that we were all free and there was no need for any further restrictions. That we now have the highest level of infections of any country in Europe and the highest number of deaths due to covid should suggest to the Government that we are not quite through this yet. The Minister might say, “That’s one of the reasons why we still brought forward this legislation,” and that is undoubtedly why most of us would not want to oppose it, but I have important questions for him.
Why are the regulations extending the relevant period only to 31 March 2022? Is there a reason, or is it just sticking a finger in the air and saying, “Well, that feels like a sensible date”? I note that that is a few days short of the normal financial year—certainly the tax year. I wonder whether that is the right date.
In the schedule that will become the new schedule 10 to the Act, paragraph (2)(c) refers to “excluded debt”. It may be that I am being stupid and that I do not know the legislation as well as I should, but will the Minister tell us what “excluded debt” is? Finally, and again this may be because I am stupid and do not understand—I thought that might unite the Committee—I note that the territorial extent of the regulations is England, Wales and Scotland. Why is Northern Ireland not included? Of course, we have considered the regulations, but we are not approving them.