Tag: Chris Bryant

Below is the text of the speech made by Chris Bryant, the Labour MP for Rhondda, in the House of Commons on 23 March 2020.

May I warmly commend the hon. Member for High Peak (Robert Largan), who I think made a magnificent speech? He delivered it with simple earnestness and a dignity that will commend him to many Members of this House. It is a sad moment, is it not, when one thinks that being an MP is the most secure job around. He was quite right to say not only what he said about no party having a monopoly on truth—ideological purity rarely does anybody any favours—but what he said about being an independently minded Member. I warmly commend everything that he said.

However, I completely despair of some of the scenes that I have seen from our fellow citizens over the last few days. The panic buying—the hoarding, frankly—of essential goods, which will therefore be denied to many people who most need them, including our key workers, is a disgrace. It is born out of selfishness and it must stop. People ignoring advice—because somehow or other they think that they will be immune to the disease or that it will only affect some other people—is, again, an instance of massive selfishness, and it really must stop. I am sick and tired of people saying that they know better than all the experts. The number of armchair epidemiologists and virologists in this country seems to have grown dramatically without any evidence of qualification.​

I hate the idea that there are companies that are actively profiteering in this country. It was a criminal offence in the war and it should be a criminal offence now. I hate the scam merchants who are going round preying on the vulnerable at the moment, which is why it is all the more important that local councils run proper schemes for volunteer forces, so that if somebody knocks at the door, an elderly person can know that they are getting the right person.

I hate the way that some of our police have been treated in the last few days—spat at and coughed over deliberately, as an offensive weapon as it were, when they have merely been trying to prevent people from gathering, in the way that the Government have been advising. This goes back to what we have been trying to do for the last few years to stop assaults on our emergency workers, and I bet my bottom dollar that there will be more assaults on emergency workers during this process. This must come to an end. We as a nation must show the best side of our humanity, not the worst side of our humanity.

And I am sorry, but to those politicians in various different countries around the world who have somehow or other tried to dismiss the experts, including those who have dismissed the idea of vaccination over the last few years, I say this: you are dangerous and you must stop it. People will die because of your misinformation.

This is, of course, a draconian Bill, for two main reasons. First, it suspends lots of protections for individuals, such as who is able to certify a death. I know why the provision is there, but, frankly, the idea that in the end it could end up just being a funeral director certifying a death is worrying, let alone the provisions in relation to sectioning under the Mental Health Act 1983. The Bill also gives Ministers the power to impose significant restrictions, which we all know are draconian. On top of that, the Attorney General rang me—I am grateful for the phone call the other day—

The Solicitor General (Michael Ellis)

The Solicitor General.

Chris Bryant

All right. Let us stand on these things; they are the ones that matter. The Solicitor General rang me the other day and made the important point that we are suspending, very unusually, the normal process in allowing Ministers to switch powers on and off. All of these things are extraordinary in peacetime.

There are some things we have to do simultaneously, and they have to happen at the same time. First, there must be a deal for sole traders and the self-employed. I have had people ringing up my office in floods of tears worrying about how they are going to make ends meet over the next few weeks, and they need an answer to that urgently. Undoubtedly, because of the ludicrous misbehaviour of so many of our fellow citizens in the past few days, we will have to move forward with enforced measures. That must happen, but it cannot happen before the Government put in place provisions for sole traders and the self-employed.

We have to put much more protection in place for our NHS staff. Every single fashion brand in this country, from Marks and Spencer through to Burberry, should be ringing up the Government now to say, “What can we do to provide more personal protective equipment ​for staff?” Many local councils, including my own, have hardly a stitch to give their key workers. We need to give them that protection.

Below is the text of the speech made by Chris Bryant, the Labour MP for Rhondda, in the House of Commons (Westminster Hall) on 2 July 2019.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered acquired brain injury.

You might have noticed, Mr Rosindell, that we have considered this matter once or twice already over the past year or two, but today we are looking at some specific elements of acquired brain injury. As all right hon. and hon. Members will know, brain injury can relate to so many parts of Government: the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Education, the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office and so on. Today we have the Health Minister before us, so I am keen to focus on health-related issues.

I know that many right hon. and hon. Members will have been approached by the Headway charity, clinicians who work in their area, patients or carers of people who have suffered a brain injury, and will want to make a contribution, so I do not intend to speak at great length. I am passionately conscious of the fact that, since I first became involved in this issue in Parliament three years ago, I have met so many amazing people—not only clinicians and people who work in the charity sector, but patients who have had brain injuries and spoken about what that experience is like. It is so important to hear that experience directly from individuals.

One particularly poignant aspect of brain injury is that in the vast majority of cases it is completely invisible. Yesterday, I met Tom Hutton, who is here—I know we are not meant to refer to the Public Gallery, Mr Rosindell, but I have already and have got away with it. He was training on his bike for an Ironman a few years ago and had a collision with a small lorry. He was in an induced coma for a week. There is not a mark on his head. No one who saw him at work or in the street, including a Department for Work and Pensions assessor, would have the faintest idea that he had had a brain injury, or an injury of any kind.

The fascinating thing he spoke to me about is that he has to talk to himself all the time. One symptom of brain injury is phenomenal fatigue, and if the sufferer does not see the fatigue coming, they can experience phenomenal depression, or dysphoria, as it is called.

Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)

I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend not only on securing this debate, but on his fantastic campaigning work in this area. On the symptoms being invisible, Departments, particularly the Department for Work and Pensions, cannot pick up precisely how such injuries affect day-to-day life, and that needs to be improved.

Chris Bryant

Yes. The all-party parliamentary group on acquired brain injury—I see that two of the vice-chairs are in the Chamber—has been campaigning to ensure that everyone who does any kind of assessment for the Department for Work and Pensions, whether for personal ​independence payments, the employment and support allowance, or any other benefit, has a full training in acquired brain injury, so that they understand the variable nature of the condition.

One element of the personality change that may come about is that somebody with a brain injury might be desperate to please the person in front of them, so they might want to give what they think is the “correct answer” to the question being asked by the official. That can give a misleading idea of what that individual’s abilities are.

I have not asked Tom whether it is all right to say all this today—I see that he is nodding, so it is fine. When the Duracell battery inside someone’s head is running low, they talk to themselves to try to re-energise it, but that uses even more energy. That can lead to a vicious cycle: further depression and anxiety makes it more difficult to recharge the battery, in turn making it more difficult to get better.

There are others who have had much more dramatic and traumatic injuries, perhaps where something has penetrated the skull. However, in the vast majority of cases, the injury will be inside the brain. A fundamental part of what we have to address is how the mind and the personality sit inside the brain. Right hon. and hon. Members might have seen the television series “MotherFatherSon”, which deals with someone who has had a massive aneurysm and then a stroke. Lots of things in the programme are not entirely accurate, but many families and individuals have to cope with the very real element of personality change. I met a wonderful woman three months ago told me that she wished that her old self would come back. She could remember what her old self was like, but it is not the person she now is. She just does not know how to recreate that personality inside herself. Again, it is this thing of talking to yourself all the time.

If there has been impairment of the executive functions due to a brain injury to the frontal lobes, particularly in teenagers or as the young brain is still developing, it can lead to all sorts of other problems in terms of employability, and being able to engage with the wider world and their family. Sometimes people share far too much information; sometimes they are far too timid about being able to share information.

Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)

On that point about sharing, as I told the Chamber in the debate on 9 May, my wife suffered from a meningioma. As I think the hon. Gentleman mentioned, a certain fretfulness can come into the character. On sharing, perhaps it is because I live in such a remote area, but I am surprised those who have come through the treatment are not encouraged more to share their pre-operative and post-operative experience with people who are suffering or are about to have a medical intervention, because it would give them great courage and help.

Chris Bryant

Yes, that is true. Because of the pattern of brain injuries across the country, it may be difficult for people to gather with people of a similar age and background. Lots of people with brain injuries arising from road traffic accidents are quite young—in their teens or early-20s. Sometimes they get put into support groups with people in their 60s or 70s. That is not an ​impossible combination, but sometimes it is not the most natural grouping for those with a much longer life expectancy.

The most difficult element for a lot of people is the significant impairment in their ability to speak and communicate. Speech therapists are an essential part of the mix in bringing people back to a degree of independent living after a significant event. One worry across the whole of the UK is the shortage of people working in this field, who sometimes do not feel as valued in the team as they might. We need to ensure that speech and language therapy is still available for some time after someone has had their immediate intervention.

One of the most common things that people tell me is that they are accused of being drunk, when in actual they have difficulty speaking properly because they have had a brain injury, not because they are a bad person. They feel the sense of stigma that attaches to not being able to speak as clearly as they might have been able to before their brain injury.

Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)

My hon. Friend mentions that people can have the appearance of being drunk. My 15-year-old adopted son’s mum drank heavily while she was pregnant with him, which is where he acquired his brain injury. The most recent research suggests that every year tens of thousands of children are born in this country with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder; it is a spectrum, as the description implies. It is a massive problem, and it leads to the kind of emotional and behavioural difficulties that my hon. Friend will be familiar with from speaking to those who have had acquired brain injuries later in life. What are his thoughts on what is needed to address the numbers of people who have brain damage through their lives?

Chris Bryant

My mother was alcoholic. I do not know whether she drank during my pregnancy—[Laughter.] Was it my pregnancy? I mean before I was born. I am painfully conscious of how difficult it is for women who are alcoholic to stop drinking when they are pregnant. The message about the dangers of drinking during pregnancy has been out there for a long time, but we still have remarkably little in the toolkit for dealing with alcoholism in this country. Broadly speaking, it is still about the 12-step process, which has a very low success rate in comparison with other therapies and which relies on surrendering to a higher being, albeit not necessarily a religious one—it just does not work for an awful lot of people. The syndrome that my hon. Friend refers to is much more prevalent than we realised even 10 years ago. Further research is going on, and we need to ensure that it is fully understood across the whole educational spectrum, as well as the health spectrum.

David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that brain injury in children and young people requires a different approach from how we handle adult brain injury?

Chris Bryant

There are specific issues that affect children. It is a profound source of depression to me as a Labour Member and a socialist that a child from a poorer background is four times more likely to suffer a brain injury before the age of five than a child from a wealthy background. We need to look at all the elements that ​lead to that, because prevention is far better than cure. I have spoken in other debates about issues that relate particularly to education, including the importance of schools having as full an understanding as possible of how brain injury can affect a child. All the statistics now indicate that every primary school class in this country has at least one child who has had a significant brain injury, although many of them may be undiagnosed. That is an issue for every single school in the country, and I do not think that we have fully taken it on board yet.

The experience of having had a brain injury often includes the sense of being pushed from pillar to post in the health system and in the organisations that the state provides. An element of that is inevitable, because something fundamentally chaotic is being brought into an ordered system. That is how it feels to the individual, too: they knew what their life was, and then suddenly—nearly always completely out of the blue—something has happened to radically change their life and their family’s lives, perhaps permanently. All too often, however, families have to fight for every single bit of support from the national health service, the local authority, the education system or wherever.

If there is one thing that I hope will come out of all the work that we have done in the all-party group, it is that we can change that feeling of having to fight for every single element. So many patients have told me, “If I could devote all my energy to getting my brain better, rather than fighting for support, I would be a useful and fully functioning member of society. I would dearly love to be that person again.” If there were any way in which all the arms of the state could fully recognise that factor, that would be something that we should dearly hope for.

The charity Sue Ryder does an awful lot of work with people who have had brain injuries and other neurological conditions. It reckons that 15,000 people who have had acquired brain injuries are now in generalist older people’s care homes, which are probably not the places to get the right support, but are the only places available. Sue Ryder is aware of at least 515 people who are placed out of area, a long way from home, which means that all the support systems that they might have through family, friends and so on are simply not available or are extremely expensive because of the travel.

We really have to do far better. The Minister is very good on the subject—I have talked to her several times—but the tendency in the NHS and in Government circles is to put a positive gloss on everything and stress all the good things that have happened. I understand that, but we are still a long way from achieving what we all want, and what the people we are talking about deserve.

The national clinical audit of specialist rehabilitation produced a report earlier this year—it has not yet been discussed in Parliament—on all the specialist rehabilitation around the country. Somebody who has had a major traumatic brain injury, or a brain injury caused by factors such as carbon monoxide poisoning, may at first need four or five people to feed them, clothe them, wash them and provide all the basics of their daily life. However, effective neurorehabilitation over a sustained period can and often does mean that they need just one person—or, in an ideal world, it gives them back the independent life that they had before, in as large a measure as possible.​

The good news from the report is that the rehabilitation prescription that the all-party group has discussed is being steadily rolled out across the whole country. That means that patients and their families can say, “This is what we know we should be getting—we want to make sure that we are getting it.”

Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on his speech. Does he share my concern that neurorehabilitation in the UK is particularly limited for children? There is just one option for in-patient neurorehabilitation and post-hospital discharge, which is run by the Children’s Trust in Surrey. Should not every region have a paediatric neurorehabilitation pathway, rather than the patchy and underfunded set of services that we have at the moment?

Chris Bryant

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, I know of a case that makes that point extremely keenly, where a young lad ended up having to go from south Wales to Surrey. Obviously in south Wales we love visits to Surrey, but it is a phenomenal cost for the family to have to visit their child there every week because it is the only facility in England and Wales. There is also an emotional cost in being a long way away and not being able to see their child every day. We really need a string of these paediatric services across the whole country.

One of the great successes that the Government have introduced in the past few years is the major trauma centres, which are now saving many more lives—at least 800 more a year. People who would have died of brain injuries are now alive. However, the national clinical audit has found that only 40% of those who were assessed at the major trauma centres as needing in-patient rehabilitation actually got it. That means that across England and Wales we are probably about 330 beds short. We have to strive to get those beds and make sure that nobody fails to get the in-patient rehabilitation that they need, not least because rehabilitation works. According to the audit, 94% of those who got the rehabilitation that they needed ended up able to live far more independent lives.

The net saving to the public purse from rehabilitation is significant. Extrapolated over a patient’s lifetime—in many cases it is quite young people who have had brain injuries—the average net lifetime saving from rehabilitation amounted to just over £500,000 per patient. That means that the total savings that would be generated from just this one-year cohort of patients alone was £582 million.

Investing in the 330 beds that are needed, which might cost somewhere in the region of £50 million, would generate an enormous return for the public purse. Leaving aside the finances, there is also a moral imperative. If we can not only save people’s lives but give them back as much quality of life as is humanly possible—if we can do that medically—we should do that as a society.

The other thing that I want to say about finances concerns the injury cost recovery scheme, which is a little-known aspect of the national health service. We always say that the NHS is free, and that is true. However, under the injury cost recovery scheme, local hospitals and ambulance services can reclaim an element of the cost when an individual has had an insurance claim met. The scheme was last reviewed in 2003, but in 2018-19 the sum total brought in by all the hospitals and ambulance trusts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland was £200 million, which is not an insignificant amount of money. In April, ​the amount that hospitals and ambulance services can charge was increased by the annual health and community services inflation measure, which meant that for in-patient care they can now claim £891 a day and for out-patients £725 a day. However, these amounts are capped at £5,381 a week and £53,278 in total.

These amounts need to be reviewed. There is no reason why hospitals in the NHS should not be able to claim a significantly higher amount when there are significant insurance claims. The extra money would not come out of the money won by the individual; it would come out of the money paid in legal and other costs. The average cost for in-patient care for somebody who has had a brain injury runs to something like £16,000 a week, yet the maximum that the NHS can claim from insurance companies is just £5,381 a week.

A regulatory impact assessment in 2006—the last one conducted by the Government—said that the cost to the NHS then was £170 million to £190 million. I reckon that in this financial year the figure would be more like £440 million, so yet again we have another means to find additional resources to put into these services.

I want to end with the experience in south Wales. I recognise that the Minister is not responsible for that, but a large number of people in south Wales, including constituents of mine and of other south Wales MPs, end up using English health services because we do not yet have a major trauma centre in Wales; there will be one and I hope that it will be very successful. I hope that the Minister will accept that one thing that was slightly left out of the equation when the major trauma centres network was set up was how to integrate fully neuro-rehabilitation—good, strong rehabilitation—and the whole pathway from ultra-acute or hyper-acute services all the way through to care in the community and patients returning to their home. Such integration was slightly forgotten and left to one side, which is why a quarter of major trauma centres in England still do not have a neuro-rehabilitation consultant.

I say to my colleagues in Wales: let us not make the same mistake in Wales. When the major trauma centre opens in Wales, I want to make sure that we have a fully functioning neuro-rehabilitation centre alongside it, so that every single patient who is assessed as being in need of in-patient neuro-rehabilitation will receive it and will continue to receive it for as long as they need it, so that they can return to full health. That should also apply to children and teenagers.

I say that because in the end, although I am not as religious as I used to be, I always have this little thing running through my mind, and I apologise if it sounds too religious or pious for some. Jesus said something about his having come to give people “life in all its fullness”. The sadness for me is that we are managing to save people’s lives but are then unable to give them life back in all its fullness. That is what the NHS should be about in this regard, because otherwise there is a cruelty, if all we do is save somebody’s life but do not give them life in all its fullness.

Below is the text of the speech made by Chris Bryant, the Labour MP for Rhondda, in the House of Commons on 14 March 2019.

If I am honest, all this just reminds me of the Muppets. It is that moment when Gonzo, I think it was, sings “The Windmills of Your Mind.” As he sings and runs faster and faster, with his legs wheeling like the Isle of Man’s coat of arms, he becomes wilder and wilder and goes out of control. We are

“like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel, never ending or beginning on an ever spinning reel”.

It is just going on and on and on, and every two weeks we come around on the merry-go-round and we make the same speeches all over again, and we still ride our own hobby horses. Frankly, it is not doing us or the nation any good medically or emotionally.

My amendment is a simple one, and it tries to put a stop to all this gyratory nonsense, as the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) rightly mentioned. My amendment is the embodiment of a very old principle of this House. When James I became King in 1603—do not worry, I am not going to do every year—he summoned Parliament, and that Parliament became so fed up with MPs constantly bringing back issues on which it had already decided that the House expressly decided on 4 April 1604:

“That a question being once made, and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again, but must stand as a judgement of the House.”

That has been our rule.

James Heappey

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Bryant

No, I will not give way. I am terribly sorry, but there is not much time and I am sure we have already decided the matter anyway, so it stands as a judgment of the House.

This ruling has been repeated many, many times. On 30 June 1864, Sir John Pakington wanted to give more money to nursery schools—hoorah! On 17 May 1870, Mr Torrens wanted to relieve poverty by enabling the poor to emigrate to the colonies. On 9 May 1882, Henry Labouchère wanted to allow MPs to declare, rather than swear, an oath so as to take their seats. On 27 January 1891, Mr Leng wanted to limit railway workers’ very long hours. On 21 May 1912—this one would probably have the support of every Member—George Lansbury wanted to allow women to vote.

On every single occasion, the Speaker—Speaker Brand, Speaker Peel, Speaker Denison and Speaker Lowther—said, “No, you can’t, because we’ve already decided that in this Session of Parliament”. That is why I believe the Government should not have the right to bring back exactly the same, or substantially the same, measure again and again as they are doing. It is not as if the Government do not have enough power. They decide every element of the timetable in the House. They decide what we can table and when. They decide when we sit. They can prorogue Parliament if they want. They have plenty of powers. The only limit is that they cannot bring back the same issue time and again in the same Session because it has already been decided.

What do the Government not understand about losing a vote by more than 200 and losing it a second time by 149? For me, the biggest irony of all is that the Government repeatedly say, “The people can’t have a second vote”, but the House of Commons? “Oh, we’ll keep them voting until they come up with the right answer”. We should stand by tradition—Conservatives should be a bit more conservative about the traditions of the House—and stop this ludicrous, gyratory motion.

Below is the text of the speech made by Chris Bryant, the Labour MP for the Rhondda, in the House of Commons on 29 January 2018.

The relationship between the United Kingdom and the overseas territories is an important but complex one. In large measure, the overseas territories are independent of the UK. They make their own decisions and draw up their own laws, which are ruled on by their own courts, but that is not the end of the story. Their constitutions have been drawn up in consultation with Her Majesty’s Government, their Governors are appointed by Her Majesty’s Government, and their external affairs, defence, internal security and policing remain the responsibility of the Governor, acting on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government.

The UK Government often step in, sometimes with financial and military support, as happened recently in the Caribbean following the terrible hurricane season. At other times, the UK Government take a different line on a matter of important policy, such as when I, as a Minister, had to suspend the Government in Turks and Caicos because of corruption, or when David Cameron pushed the overseas territories to implement public registers of preferential ownership so as to end some of the secrecy that attends the financial provisions in those territories, which have sometimes brought the British financial system into disrepute.

That is as true for Bermuda as it is for any of the other overseas territories. I honestly have no desire to upset the delicate balance, but it is my firm belief that British citizens should enjoy the same freedoms in Bermuda as in England or Wales or, for that matter, Northern Ireland.

Bermuda has made significant strides in recent years on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights. Immigration law has been changed to allow immigration rights for non-Bermudian same-sex partners of Bermudians. Gays and lesbians, either by themselves or as a couple, are now able to adopt, and its anti-discrimination legislation includes protection on the basis of sexual orientation.

Another positive step came last year. On 5 May, the Supreme Court in Bermuda ruled in a case brought by Winston Godwin and his Canadian fiancé, Greg DeRoche, that

“the Applicants were discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation…when the Registrar refused to process their Notice of Intended Marriage…The Applicants are entitled to an Order of Mandamus compelling the Registrar to act in accordance with the requirements of the Marriage Act; and…A Declaration that same-sex couples are entitled to be married under the Marriage Act”.

It was clear that the then Bermudian Government were not very happy with the ruling. They had held a very poorly attended referendum on the matter the year before, on 23 June 2016—that was quite a day for referendums. It was a referendum that no lesbian or gay organisation or individual had ever called for, but which the Government insisted on. That referendum suggested, on a turnout of less than 50%, that Bermudians opposed both same-sex marriage and same-sex civil unions by roughly two to one, which was why Justice Charles-Etta Simmons made the following clear in her summation:

“The politicians failed, the referendum failed, so I will step in and protect the rights of a minority”.​

Many people in Bermuda, and in many other overseas territories and countries around the world, rejoiced at that moment.

There were two sensible, non-confrontational courses that the Bermudian Government could have taken: abide by the ruling of the Court; or appeal to the Privy Council in this country—that is the standard process for appealing a decision. In fact, the Minister of Home Affairs announced on 9 May that the Government would not appeal, and on 31 May, the first same-sex marriage took place in Bermuda. There have now been eight such marriages in total and four further publications of banns of marriage.

Then came a new Government, after an election, who decided to draft a law to abolish same-sex marriage and replace it with “domestic partnerships”, albeit allowing those same-sex marriages that had already been celebrated to stand, rather in a position of limbo. It is a deeply unpleasant and very cynical piece of legislation. It sounds quite nice on the face of it, as if it is just the same as civil partnerships in this country, but it is not. It seeks to keep marriage officers separate from domestic partnerships officers, as if to protect them from some kind of infection. It allows a domestic partnership to be voided on the sole grounds of “venereal disease”. It was introduced by a Government whose members have openly declared that they are opposed to civil unions of any kind whatsoever and pretended not even to know that same-sex couples have regularly been denied the right to make important medical decisions on behalf of their sick and dying partners in Bermuda.

Section 53 of the law states:

“Notwithstanding anything in the Human Rights Act 1981, any other provision of law or the judgment of the Supreme Court in Godwin and DeRoche v The Registrar General and others delivered on 5 May 2017, a marriage is void unless the parties are respectively male and female.”

In all the history of legislation, I have never seen a measure that so clearly declares from the outset that it is inconsistent with all the other laws in the land, including the Human Rights Act, the constitution and the judgment of the Supreme Court. It is almost begging the Supreme Court to come to exactly the same decision as it did last year. Unfortunately, this Bill was agreed by both Houses in Bermuda on 8 December, but it cannot become law unless and until the UK-appointed Governor, John Rankin, signifies Royal Assent on behalf of the Government, which so far he has not done.

I believe that the Governor is entirely within his rights to delay a final decision or, if he chooses, to refuse Royal Assent, as the Bermudian constitution states at section 35:

“unless he has been authorised by a Secretary of State to assent thereto, the Governor shall reserve for the signification of Her Majesty’s pleasure any bill which appears to him, acting in his discretion—

(a) to be inconsistent with any obligation of Her Majesty or of Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom towards any other state or power or any international organisation;

(b) to be likely to prejudice the Royal prerogative;

(c) to be in any way repugnant to or inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution;

(d) to affect any matter for which he is responsible under section 62 of this Constitution; or

(e) to relate to currency or banking.”

On the basis of least two of those limbs, the Governor has very good cause not to grant Royal Assent.​

As section 12 of the constitution expressly guarantees freedom from discrimination and the Bermudian Human Rights Act 1981 also expressly prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation on at least seven different points, it is difficult to disagree with the Supreme Court, and therefore equally difficult to see how the Governor could agree Royal Assent. There are other reasons why the Governor should withhold assent. It would have been one thing if the Bermudian Government had introduced civil partnerships as a forward step when there was no such provision in law in Bermuda, but this is a retrograde step—it is taking a step backwards—that deliberately limits the rights currently enjoyed by many Bermudians.

Incidentally, this is not just a matter of marriages contracted in Bermuda. The law also applies to Bermuda-registered ships, including many cruise liners that used to be registered out of the United Kingdom, so the service of marriage at sea that Cunard and P&O offer, such as on the Queen Mary 2, the Queen Victoria and the Queen Elizabeth—there is some irony in this—is currently available to same-sex couples. I understand that there was a great big party on one P&O liner when the Supreme Court decision was announced—considerable amounts of champagne were drunk—and there have since been three same-sex marriages on board P&O cruise liners. If the proposed law goes ahead, those marriages will cease. Cunard believes it is likely that Bermudian law will not permit a same-sex wedding ceremony on board its ships after the end of this month, adding:

“We are very unhappy about this decision and we do not underestimate the disappointment this will cause those guests who have planned their weddings.”

I am certain that those people will be taking new cases to the Supreme Court in Bermuda.

I have received a great number of emails, tweets and messages about this issue. Some of them have been quite pleasant, but others have not. Some have told me in very robust terms to butt out, saying this should just be up to Bermuda, but I disagree. This matter impinges on how Britain is viewed around the world, and I take just as active an interest in the human rights of LGBT people in Moscow, Tehran and Beijing as I do in the human rights of those in Hamilton, because the thing is that human rights are, to use a Biblical phrase, a seamless garment. We cannot divide them up. As one Bermudian put it in an email to me,

“all people have the right to be equal under the law and the right to exercise their full range of human rights, without exception. This is how I live my life and this is what I encourage others around me”

to do.

Black and white, man and woman, gay and straight, Russian, Iranian, American, Canadian and Bermudian—it is all exactly the same. We are all human beings and our human rights should not differ. To the person who told me not to interfere because we have not yet sorted out Northern Ireland, I should add that when the Labour Government legislated in favour of LGBT rights in England and Wales, we decided to advance that legislation in Northern Ireland as well, even when Northern Irish politicians objected. The Government here in Westminster need to look hard at the situation in Northern Ireland and implement equality. It is unfair that our Northern Irish brothers and sisters are unable to enjoy the same rights as everybody else.​

Some people say, “You change hearts and minds first, and then you change the law.” I profoundly disagree with that. There is clear evidence that changing the law helps to change people’s hearts and minds. For two centuries and more, people—including people who considered themselves to be good upstanding Christians—considered slavery to be just part of the natural order. It was laid down and allowed. Indeed, many bishops had large plantations and many slaves. We now know that that was a cruel and despotic belief. Today, we find it unthinkable that people could conceive of slavery as acceptable.

It is my profound belief that in 100 years’ time, people will wonder what on earth people were thinking when they condemned homosexuality as a sin, when they barred gay and lesbian couples from declaring their love for one another in marriage, and when they fought tooth and nail to say that marriage had to be exclusively between a man and a woman. Because, really, what harm does it do anyone else if two men are allowed to marry? Has the sky fallen in in Bermuda? Have straight husbands suddenly abandoned their wives, or have heterosexual wives run off with each other? Have straight marriages lost their sparkle? Of course they have not.

If anything, straight couples should be rejoicing that so many people want to form long-lasting, stable relationships and to get married, because marriage is a thing of beauty. The public declaration of love between two people—from this day forward, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part—binds people and families together. It gives a safe home to thousands of children and to elderly parents as well. It enriches life and gives hope, and often it banishes the loneliness that for generations and generations gay men and lesbian women thought would be their lot.

For many gay men and lesbian couples, same-sex marriage provides a public affirmation that chases away the ghosts of shame and self-loathing that so many grew up with thanks to the hateful judgmentalism of others. Why on earth would anyone want to deny that to anyone else? Why on earth would a Christian want to deny that to anyone else? Why on earth would we perpetuate the homophobia that has left youngsters emotionally bruised by hateful taunts in the playground, or physically battered almost to death outside gay bars because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Of course I would much prefer it if the Governor did not sign the Domestic Partnership Bill into law—if he did not grant assent. I hope he does not, and I hope that the Foreign Secretary does not instruct him to do so. If necessary, I hope he just lets it lie on the table until the Supreme Court has another go, as it almost certainly will. What would be even better, if I am honest, would be if the Bermudian Government thought again, respected all their fellow citizens, embraced the principle that the first rule of equality is to protect minorities, and withdrew the Domestic Partnership Bill. I say to the Minister for Home Affairs in Bermuda, the honourable Walton Brown, “If you withdraw the Bill, it will one day be the single action in your political career of which you will be most proud. One day it will be, and your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren will say, ‘That is what he did.’”

To the Premier, the honourable David Burt, I would add, “You are a very clever man. You graduated cum laude from George Washington University and you led ​the Progressive Labour Party very successfully to power in the elections last year. You have said publicly that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, and that this is not really about your religious beliefs, and yet you hold that same-sex marriage is just not culturally acceptable. Those are your words.” I am sorry, but that is just cruel. If this is an innate part of some people’s personality—some would say that God created them that way—it is simply cruel to deny an opportunity that everybody else would want for themselves. It is not rational and it is not progressive—it is just naked prejudice.

The Labour party of which I am a member has always supported LGBT rights, even in the dark days of the Victorians, the Edwardians and the Georgians, right up to legislating to get rid of the horrible legislation in the 1960s. I say to Bermuda and to the Premier of Bermuda, “I hope you change your mind.” I hope Bermuda changes its mind, and I hope the Government do not sign this legislation into law.

Below is the text of the speech made by Chris Bryant in the House of Commons on 21 April 2016.

Of course, as you know, Mr Speaker, it will be you who properly summarise this debate, because it is for you to choose the appropriate words from it when you go to the Palace with 12 of us. This is not really a summing-up speech, but more a contribution of my own, and I am grateful for that opportunity, not least because I think I am the only Member of this House who has ever sworn the Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty and her successors both as a Member of Parliament and as a clerk in holy orders. I would therefore like to thank her enormously for the faithfulness she has shown to the Church of England and, for that matter, the Church of Scotland. She manages to be ambidextrous in that, as in so many other things.

I am delighted to be here. It reminds me of the time when Norman St John-Stevas, who was simultaneously Leader of the House and Arts Minister, greeted Queen Elizabeth, the then Queen Mother, at the foot of the stairs of the Royal Opera House. As they climbed the stairs, the large crowd burst into a spontaneous round of applause, at which Her Majesty was distinctly heard to say, “Lucky things: two queens for the price of one.”

I cannot pretend to know Her Majesty well—or, indeed, at all—but I once canvassed the staff at Balmoral in the Kincardine and Deeside by-election. We did not get very many supporters—in fact, I think we came fourth in the by-election.

My father Rees, however, played an important part in the coronation in 1953. He was serving in the RAF in Lytham at the time, but when 31 Group, which was based in Hawarden in north Wales, decided to send 40 male and female RAF officers to march in the coronation, it was decided that somebody had to brush up their marching skills, so my 19-year-old father was sent for. He was flown up to Hawarden in a tiny aeroplane and spent a few days with the officers. Apparently my father was so good at shouting at people that he was not needed for the coronation itself.

I make that point simply to underline quite how many people’s lives Her Majesty has touched. She has visited the Rhondda many times. Indeed, a photo of her at Plas Horeb in Treherbert in 1989 was used for the 24p stamp to celebrate her 40th anniversary in 1992.

When Her Majesty came to the Rhondda in June 2002, I was asked to walk with her past the great number of people who had lined the streets of Treorchy, all of whom were singing, “She’ll be stopping in Treorchy when she comes”. I knew that my office manager, Kevin Morgan, was going to be there with his two young sons, Sam and Owen, so when I saw them waving their little Union flags, I gently steered Her Majesty towards them. The two boys were very young at the time and rather shy, so as we approached I said, “Go on, then—say hello.” Unfortunately, Her Majesty thought I was talking to her: “All right, young man!” she barked back at me, so she will probably not read this speech later.

The truth is that Her Majesty has had to put up with an awful lot in her time. She has had to suffer a phenomenal stream of politicians—she will be getting another 13 in a few days’ time—and 160 Prime Ministers in all her dominions.

Living with change is one of the most difficult things in the world, especially when you are almost powerless yourself to affect it. Yet that is exactly what she has done, in admirable style. Technology has changed faster than in any other generation, including television, computers, mobile phones, Twitter and so on. Social attitudes have changed dramatically, too. It is strange to think that in 1952 there were just 17 women in Parliament—18, I suppose, if we include her—but today there are 191 women MPs and 201 women peers. That is still not enough, but it is better than it was.

It seems incredible today, but in 1952 parents of children with cerebral palsy found it impossible to find anyone to educate their children, which is why three parents set up the Spastics Society, which became Scope. Since then, we have made enormous strides: the first Minister for Disabled People, the Disability Discrimination Acts, the Disability Rights Commission and so on. Quite often, the royal family have played a dramatic role in changing those attitudes by the way in which they have reached out. Likewise, when the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” was first published in 1952, it classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, yet very few today would hold that view, and one can even get married in Parliament in a same-sex ceremony.

When we think about what the Queen has lived through—the second world war, the cold war, the Falklands, the end of empire, the troubles and then the peace in Northern Ireland—it is difficult not to feel, in Shakespeare’s words from the end of “King Lear”:

“The oldest hath borne most: we that are young

Shall never see so much, nor live so long.”

For all the pomp and circumstance, regalia and deference, the reason why our constituents—republicans and monarchists alike—admire and respect the Queen is because of her fundamental decency, her manifest commitment to doing her duty and her ability to keep her counsel. At the end of Thomas Hardy’s novel “The Woodlanders”, the courageous peasant girl Marty South pays tribute to Giles Winterborne in very simple terms as “a good man” who “did good things”. I think we can all agree that we could surely say the same of Her Majesty: a good woman who does good things.