Cultural Objects (Protection from Seizure) Bill

Debate between Mel Stride and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 17th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

Thank you very much indeed, Mr Hosie. May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship? It takes me right back to all those Finance Bills that we got through together, which were immensely entertaining and rewarding.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

That’s not true!

[Mel Stride]

No, they were—beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as it were.

I thank all Members for supporting and attending the Committee, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport. As the Minister at the time that the Bill was introduced, she was particularly helpful to me and encouraged me to bring these measures to the House.

The Bill is a short, two-clause Bill with a simple objective: to allow the relevant approving authorities to extend immunity from seizure beyond the current 12-month period allowed for in legislation in cases where museums are unable to return loaned objects from abroad because of unforeseen circumstances. The relevant approving authorities are the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport in England, Ministers in Scotland and Wales, and the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland. The Bill will allow the relevant authority to extend the period of protection for up to three months. This power may be exercised on more than one occasion in relation to a particular object.

The Bill enjoyed strong cross-party support on Second Reading, and no amendments have been tabled. For the following reasons, I hope that the Committee will feel able to support the Bill’s passage to Report and Third Reading.

It may be helpful if I explain why the Bill is important for our museums and galleries, and for the institutions abroad that so generously lend their art treasures for the benefit of the UK public. The Bill seeks to amend part 6 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which provides immunity from seizure for cultural objects on loan from abroad in temporary exhibitions in museums and galleries in the UK. Under section 134 of that Act, cultural objects on loan from abroad to exhibitions held in UK museums and galleries approved under the Act are protected from court-ordered seizure for a period of 12 months from the date the object enters the United Kingdom. That legislation was adopted in response to growing international concern that works of art were in danger of being seized while abroad by those who claimed that they were owed money by a foreign state or because of territorial disputes between countries.

Section 134 of the 2007 Act provides that an object will be protected against seizure throughout the UK if it meets the conditions under section 134(2) and it is brought here for temporary public display by a museum or gallery that is approved under section 136 of the Act by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport or the appropriate authority in the devolved Administrations. The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is responsible for approving institutions in England, and the devolved Administrations have similar powers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. To gain approval under the Act, institutions must demonstrate that their procedures for establishing the provenance and ownership of objects are of a high standard.

In 2007, it was considered that 12 months was an adequate period to allow objects to arrive in the UK and to be returned following their inclusion in a temporary exhibition. Section 134(4) of the 2007 Act therefore provides that the protection continues

“for not more than 12 months beginning with the day when the object enters the United Kingdom.”

The only exception to that, in which case the period can be extended, is where an object suffers damage and repair work is required.

There are now 38 institutions across the UK that have been approved for immunity from seizure, and where objects on loan from abroad have received protection. Exhibitions such as “Tutankhamun” at the Saatchi Gallery in 2019, which was visited by more than 580,000 people, would not have been possible without immunity from seizure being in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

I rise, finally, to express my gratitude to you, Mr Hosie, for your excellent chairmanship of the Committee; to my hon. Friend the Minister for his support and remarks; and to Opposition Members, particularly the hon. Member for Wirral South.

[Chris Bryant]

Before the right hon. Gentleman finishes, I wonder whether he might like to correct the record? The Laughing Cavalier is not actually laughing at all; he is simply smiling. That name is a 19th century invention. It would be better to go back to the original title.

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for a typical intervention. I can picture the Laughing Cavalier at the top of the stairs, I think, at the Wallace Collection—what a marvellous painting. The hon. Gentleman is right: the Laughing Cavalier is smiling, but perhaps he is none the less having the last laugh when it comes to his title.

I was in the middle of thanking the hon. Member for Wirral South very much indeed for her support. I also thank the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport, for the encouragement she gave me at an early stage. I thank our Clerk, Adam Mellows-Facer, for his superb clerking of the Bill and the help he has provided, as well as all the officials at DCMS who have been engaged on the Bill—their support was invaluable.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Health and Social Care Levy

Debate between Mel Stride and Chris Bryant

1st reading
Wednesday 8th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

I rise to welcome, broadly, the motion. It seems to me that social care is one of those issues that parties of both colours have grappled with for many years, yet now we are at last at the point where a Government have the courage and are sensible enough to actually come forward with some realistic proposals. As to the breaking of manifesto commitments, no party ever wishes to do that, but listening to the Opposition it seems to me as if the global pandemic never occurred, as if the economy never shrank by the greatest level since 1709 during the great frost of that year, as if millions of jobs were never imperilled, and as if this Government never had to step in fiscally in a way that probably no Government outside wartime have ever had to do, and with such positive effects.

When it comes to the honesty or otherwise of what the Government have done, I think they have been upfront, very clear and very honest in making it clear that they have broken that commitment, unlike, I have to say, the less straightforward way in which, repeatedly in this debate, the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor have ducked the fundamental question: what is the Opposition’s alternative plan? In response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), the shadow Chancellor, when asked why Labour had supported an increase in national insurance in 2003, said, “Well, we had a plan.” I humbly remind her that that was 18 years ago. What we need to see now is a plan from the Opposition, as well as the criticism.

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman and I have known each other for a very long time. I just hope that he could explain to my constituents why it is right that practically everybody in the Rhondda would have to sell their home to meet the £86,000 cost, whereas next to nobody would have to do so in his constituency.

[Mel Stride]

First, the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge of my constituency is obviously rather deficient, because I expect that mine shares many characteristics in common with his. I do not dispute the fact that any major fiscal move, such as putting up national insurance and bringing in this levy in this manner, will have associated complexities and difficulties. My pledge to the House is that the Treasury Committee will, I am sure, after private discussion, decide that we wish to look more closely at a number of the issues that are being raised in this debate, including the one that he mentioned.

Let us be honest about the options that were available to the Treasury. How could we have squared the circle and funded £10 billion-plus a year? The first thing that the Treasury could have done is to seek to cut expenditure in other areas, yet I have no doubt that if it came forward with any proposals of that nature, the Opposition would have fiercely resisted that as austerity all over again. We have to understand that on the current projections, there are many unfunded commitments, including, for example, keeping our railways going, going for net zero, additional funding that will be needed for school catch-up and so on.

Bullying and Harassment of MPs’ Parliamentary Staff

Debate between Mel Stride and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 17th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman has raised a very specific and interesting point, to which, I am sorry to say, I do not immediately know the answer. I always like to know all the answers. [Interruption.] I am being told by Members sitting behind the hon. Gentleman that the answer is yes, but I will clarify that one way or the other and write to him accordingly.

None of the points that I have made are intended to suggest that progress has not already been achieved, or that serious shortcomings in the management of, and behaviour towards, members of staff have been universal. Indeed, in her report Gemma White says:

“Most Members of Parliament treat their staff with dignity and respect”.

She says that she

“received a number of written contributions from people who wrote only to tell me about their positive experiences in Parliament.”

As she points out, that was despite the fact that her remit did not extend to inviting people to do so. She also says that during her work on the report, she heard or read of MPs who were

“MPs who were “a model employer”, “a fantastic boss”, “the best employer I have ever had”.

The report draws attention to areas of slow progress, but recognises that important progress has been made. The independent complaints and grievance scheme is praised as being

“an appropriate and relatively sophisticated means of investigating allegations.”

I echo the report’s praise for the dedicated implementation team who have made the scheme’s introduction, in the report’s own words, “a success”. Its operation is a clear improvement in the support that it offers to victims of bullying and harassment, and is also a firm indication of the seriousness with which Parliament views these matters. It shows the will and determination in the House to take strong and effective steps, working across the parties with the unified purpose of addressing inappropriate behaviour wherever it is found. It is important not to forget that before the introduction of the scheme, most complainants typically had recourse only to the Member about whom they were complaining, or to party political processes.

There has, of course, also been the Cox report. The White report calls for the implementation of Dame Laura Cox’s key recommendations, which include the removal of the June 2017 cut-off for historical complaints. That will be the subject of the motion that I will move shortly after this debate. If the motion is agreed, it will be a significant and important step forward. It will open up the ICGS to those who, for example, may have been bullied or harassed as recently as just before the last general election, and/or are no longer in the employ of a Member.

Although I recognise that there has been progress, there should be absolutely no cause for complacency, and Gemma White makes a number of important recommendations. Some appear relatively straightforward to consider and, potentially, implement, such as the recommendation for a review of confidentiality clauses within the standard contracts of employment of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority; the recommendation that IPSA should send out staff exit surveys; and the recommendation that the House Service should address the

“fair recruitment and management of staff with disabilities”

in its training. Other recommendations will require more thought, and present significant further questions. For instance, there is the recommendation that a new human resources department should be set up to cover Members’ staff, and to include HR personnel located both centrally and out in the regions.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I do not understand why there is any debate about this bit. I think that the vast majority of Members, when they arrived in the House, would welcome with open arms the idea of a good HR function here, providing them good training, because many of us were never employers before we came here. I just do not understand why it is difficult for us to put that together. It seems to me to be the simplest thing of all.

[Mel Stride]

I do not think that anything I have said has suggested that we should not go ahead with this recommendation. The point that I am making is that it is a quite a major proposition which needs to be thought through carefully, as does any proposal of this magnitude. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. That rather implies that he does not think it should be thought through carefully, which I am sure is not what he is intending to communicate.

[Chris Bryant]

I am not questioning the integrity of the Leader of the House, and I am sure that he is not questioning mine. It is just that this debate has been around for quite a long time, and the House of Commons Commission probably needs to meet more frequently and be able to transact business more expeditiously so that we can get on with this. The Finance Committee stands ready to do its share of the work, but honestly, some of us have been arguing for HR for a very long time.

[Mel Stride]

I know that some Members have been arguing for various aspects of the approach that we should take to addressing harassment, sexual harassment and bullying, and I know that there have been issues around the time that it has taken to put into place various aspects of our appropriate response to that. What I am saying from the Dispatch Box this afternoon is that we are now moving with pace. Directly after this debate we will have, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, a motion to bring in and broaden the scope of the ICGS, and that in itself is an example of how we are now moving forward with pace.

However, while recognising the progress made, there should be absolutely no cause for complacency on the various recommendations I have highlighted that have been brought forward by Gemma White. Consideration of the recommendations is of course a matter for the House, and today’s debate is an important part of that process. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the fact that this debate has been brought forward so shortly after the release of the White report is in itself a very healthy sign. We need now to continue to proceed at pace, to come to our conclusions on the recommendations of the report as soon as possible, and to bring forward further much-needed change at the earliest possible opportunity. We owe that to those who do so much to support us as Members of Parliament, but we owe it also to those who send us here and who in turn rightly expect the highest possible standards of each and every one of us.

Business of the House

Debate between Mel Stride and Chris Bryant

Thursday 11th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I know that the Secretary of State will have heard my right hon. Friend’s comments about the importance of, as I might express it, the human touch in the interaction between patients and GPs, and the dangers of the use of technology. As a rejoinder to his poetic contribution, let me perhaps reach to paraphrase John Donne, the great metaphysical poet—

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

And MP.

[Mel Stride]

Yes, and MP. He said, on this issue of us being connected to humanity: “No man is an island entire of itself; any man’s death diminishes me for I am involved in mankind; therefore do not send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of the frequency and volume of flights from London City airport. I would point him to Transport questions, which will be held on Thursday.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Six months ago today, I visited my GP with a small mole on the back of my head. I was very fortunate that the GP passed me straight on to the dermatologist and everything happened quickly, but since then I have met dozens and dozens of people for whom the most galling thing about their cancer diagnosis is being told that is quite late—stage 3 or 4. I have met young women who have lost their mother, including one last week who was still in tears, because she felt that if only the diagnosis had been faster, they would have been able to save her life. Yet 97% of pathology units in England say that they are understaffed, we have about 600 too few dermatologists in the country, and in Wales we have 22 consultant pathologist posts empty. How can we make sure that we save people’s lives if we do not have enough staff? Can we have a debate on this?

[Mel Stride]

I join the whole House in saying how pleased we are that the hon. Gentleman received prompt and appropriate treatment, and that he has had a full recovery. The Government’s record on cancer survival rates generally is good, but there is always room for improvement. What is really important is the additional funds being put into the national health service: £84 billion over the next five years, the largest single cash investment in its history. Cancer features prominently in the NHS 10-year plan, both in terms of getting survival rates up still further and ensuring we prevent cancers in the first place, and, as he rightly points out, in early diagnosis of cancer in all its forms.

Business of the House

Debate between Mel Stride and Chris Bryant

Thursday 6th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mel Stride)]

The business for the week commencing 10 June will include:

Monday 10 June—Remaining stages of the National Insurance Contributions (Termination Awards and Sporting Testimonials) Bill, followed by a debate on a motion on the mineworkers pension scheme. The subject of this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 11 June—Motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Enforcement) (Amendment) Order 2019, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019, followed by a general debate on the UK voluntary national review on the sustainable development goals.

Wednesday 12 June—Opposition day (unallotted day). There will be a debate on inequality and social mobility, followed by a debate on discrimination in sport. Both debates will arise on a motion in the name of the official Opposition.

Thursday 13 June—Debate on a motion on social housing, followed by a general debate on making Parliament a more modern, family-friendly and accessible workplace. The subjects of these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 14 June—The House will not be sitting.

May I, on this particular occasion, extend the best wishes and thoughts of the whole House to all who are assembled in Normandy today to reflect on and commemorate the D-day landings?

It has been a very crowded field, with many runners and riders, but here I am as the new Leader of the House, and also as the new Lord President of the Council, which means that I have become a leader without an election and a lord without having to be elevated to the peerage. For having quietly achieved that during these tumultuous times, I think I should be congratulated.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

You’ve already done it.

[Mel Stride]

Indeed I have.

I would like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). In so doing, Mr Speaker, may I say that I hope that we can continue in the warm and familiar spirit that characterised your relationship with my predecessor, and hope that I can benefit from your continued indulgence? My right hon. Friend travelled the length and breadth of our country to press the case for our Parliament. She pressed hard to protect the very fabric of our Parliament with all her work around restoration and renewal. She fought for the piloting of proxy votes to make this place a more family-friendly environment. She worked particularly hard to change the culture in the Palace of Westminster so that there should be no place for bullying or harassment of any kind. We owe her a great debt.

I would also like briefly to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), who stood in at such short notice on the previous occasion and performed with such oratorical brilliance and dexterity. His are big shoes to fill, not least because he has very large feet.

For my part, I will strive to be an effective voice for Parliament in Government and to conduct myself in a consensual and inclusive manner. My door will always be open to Members right across this House—especially, of course, to the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), and all those who speak for their parties and the Committees of this House.

Beyond these walls, I will play my part to defend our democracy, in a world in which the public square has too often become a place of misinformation and abuse. This House is precious, yet sometimes fragile. When it is degraded, we are diminished, but when it is at its best, we are all enriched.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend raises an excellent point, and I do of course join him in paying tribute to Diane McGregor, Sandra McLennan and the amazing band of volunteers for their outstanding work and for receiving the Queen’s award for voluntary service. The Government recognise the huge importance of volunteering and it would be an excellent subject for an Adjournment debate.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I warmly congratulate the new Leader of the House, although I will not do your trick, Mr Speaker, of reminding him of where we first met as it would be far too embarrassing for me. May I just say that I think his answers on Prorogation and whether a new Prime Minister will address the House swiftly after being elected have been wholly inadequate so far? It would surely be on a Venezuelan scale of outrage if we were to prorogue Parliament simply to force through a no-deal Brexit against the will of Parliament. Even Winston Churchill—during the midst of war when the British Expeditionary Force was in danger of complete collapse in France and we were trying to get people out of Dunkirk—when he was made Prime Minister in May 1940 addressed the House of Commons just three days later. Even the Marquess of Salisbury in 1885 knew he had to come to Parliament the next day. So surely to God the new Leader of the House should be able to say to us today, “Yes, a new Prime Minister will address the House of Commons within a week of being appointed.”

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I am not quite as shy as him about revealing to the House where we first met: I was very proud to meet the hon. Gentleman I think for the first time as a fully signed up member of the Conservative party at Oxford University. Quite where it all went wrong after that I have no idea, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to come and talk to me about the error of his ways at any point I will be happy to try to enlighten him on those matters.

The hon. Gentleman raises once again the issue of Prorogation, and he will know that these matters and others are all going to be decisions that the future Prime Minister will take and that it is not for me to speculate about what they might be.

HMRC Estate Transformation

Debate between Mel Stride and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend for shamelessly promoting, quite rightly, the properties in his constituency. I would be very happy to meet him to discuss the area.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker,

“‘Beauty is truth, truth beauty’—that is all

Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.”

The Minister keeps referring to bringing together hubs, but the danger is that that will mean everything moving to big cities, and all the smaller towns in a constituency, such as all those towns in the valleys in south Wales, losing out. There are loyal HMRC workers, and cheaper properties, in many of these towns. Will he not look at those smaller towns?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we set all current arrangements in aspic. Going back some decades, there would have been not 170 offices across the country, but several hundred. No doubt if we went back in time, the hon. Gentleman would have been on his feet telling us that we should keep 700 offices, rather than shrinking the number down to 170. The reality is that the way that the tax authority conducts its affairs is effective—I have given the figures—and there is a model that makes that happen. That lends itself to 21st-century hubs that have the right resourcing to do the job.

Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis

Debate between Mel Stride and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 28th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are figures of that nature in this report, because it is an honest and open report about the implications of all the possible outcomes. However, we have to compare that with no deal, or with the EEA or an average FTA deal. We have negotiated with the European Union and we have to deal with politics not just as perpetual opposition but as the art of the possible and the art of doing a deal that will be good for this country, safeguard our economy and deliver on those things that the referendum result told us in 2016.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The trouble with the Government being in denial is that they just keep on denying that they are in denial until they go blue in the face. What we have learned today is that this Minister cannot read the writing on the wall, even when he has written it himself. The truth of the matter, when we boil this all down, is that the country will have to pay a price if Brexit goes ahead, and the people who will have to pay the most are the poorest in the land—my constituents. Should they not have the right to a final say on this?

[Mel Stride]

This is now the sixth or seventh time that I have been asked whether we should have a second referendum. I shall just reiterate what I have said on each previous occasion. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we had a vote in 2016 and it had the largest turnout of any electoral event in this country’s history—[Interruption.] He rolls his eyes, but I think that fact is significant. It would be a betrayal of the will of the British people to now go out and say, “We didn’t actually like the answer you gave the first time, so how about a different answer this time?”