Early Parliamentary General Election Bill

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It is always a pleasure to oblige the hon. Gentleman because his naughtiness is mitigated by his charm, but the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) should not be diverted from the path of virtuous debate by his intervention, no matter how sedulously he propagates his case.

[Mrs Main]

I take your instruction, Mr Speaker, and I will not be diverted.

A general election allows us to ask which party is prepared to honour democracy, and I will be asking that question every day in St Albans. A general election also reminds people that a strong Government is needed, and I mean a strong Government with a majority.

The current situation is the worst of all governance. It is governance by horse-trading. The Conservative party did not quite have the majority it needed at the 2010 election, so the Liberal Democrats came into power with us. [Interruption.] It worked so well, as someone says from a sedentary position. The horse-trading began straightaway. Horse-trading is exactly what happens in weak Governments. The lack of numbers means people suddenly start putting forward different agendas.

In St Albans, many students and young people were seduced by the thought of free tuition fees. I heard that being promised time and again across the land, and young people, potentially facing large debts being wiped away, suddenly found they might want to nail their colours to tuition fees at a general election. Tuition fees were an issue that attracted many young people for obvious reasons, and young people nailed their colours to that mast in largish numbers.

However, when we got into government with the Liberal Democrats, tuition fees were the first thing to be horse-traded. Tuition fees were horse-traded for a vote on the alternative vote system. The Liberal Democrats felt that changing the voting system was more important than tuition fees. As a result, hundreds of thousands of young people found themselves being duped and the horse-trading continued.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Main]

On Brenda of Bristol, I shall give way.

[Mr Speaker]

Has the hon. Lady completed her oration?

[Mrs Main]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

No, she is taking an intervention from none other than the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone)

[Jamie Stone]

Mr Speaker, I rise as the unrecognised Liberal Democrat in this place and I apologise to the Chamber. Let me get back to the issue of the election itself. I represent the coldest and most northerly constituency in the British mainland. It is going to get dark a hell of a lot earlier where I come from than it does in St Albans, and the streets and roads are going to be an awful lot icier. This is perhaps an appeal for the Leader of the House, who is not with us at this precise moment, but may I ask the Government to co-ordinate as closely as possible with the Scottish Government to make sure that the streets and roads are safe for the people who want to come out to exercise their democratic right?

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. May we have a clarification from the Chair that the Second Reading was passed with a significant majority? The leaders of the Liberal Democrats and the SNP keep saying that it has not been passed. Can you clarify that Second Reading was passed with a majority?

[Mr Speaker]

That is undeniably true. I am not sure that my clarification was required for Members, but for the benefit of those observing our proceedings the hon. Lady makes a fair point. It is important to be clear: the Second Reading of the Bill was carried, as I announced, by 329 votes to 299. It was the programme motion that was defeated by 322 to 308. That is by way of being a public service broadcast.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law)

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Main]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are having great difficulty hearing the hon. Gentleman, who is making a powerful speech, because he is being barracked.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not wish to be unkind to the hon. Lady, but she is not entirely averse to making loud noises from a sedentary position, so although I appreciate her important contribution on this, I think I will make the judgment myself, if she doesn’t mind. I am deeply obliged to her.

Leaving the EU: Business of the House

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Main]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have just been asked to nominate a day. Mr Speaker, you are always a friend of all the Back Benchers. It seems to me that there is a worry about a particular candidate that Opposition Members may or may not like the Order Paper to reflect. If there is a worry about having a choice of how we wish to leave the European Union, I am sure you, Mr Speaker, would find a way to ensure there was parliamentary time. At the moment, however, we do not know what it is we are voting to have a day for. It is a fear of one or two of the candidates. If their fears were to be recognised, I am absolutely certain you would facilitate a debate.

[Mr Speaker]

I always seek to facilitate the House and to ensure that the full range of opinion is expressed. These are matters of debate and, notwithstanding the sedulous efforts to entice me into contributing to it, I feel I must exercise a self-denying ordinance. The hon. Lady has made her own point in her own way, with alacrity.

EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Motions)

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

Monday 1st April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Forgive me if I was not sufficiently clear. I thought I had been. My apologies to the hon. Gentleman if my reply was too opaque. I thought I had indicated in an earlier reply that the House, in the motion that it had supported, had endorsed the approach to indicative votes that we are now taking. It is a discrete process separate from and different to the processes that have been adopted thus far.

All sorts of arguments and explanations have been given as to why we are in this process, with the House taking control of the process, and I do not need to revisit those, but I have answered that point already. I do not wish to be unkind to the hon. Gentleman, whom I like and respect very much as he knows, but I fear I have to say to him that it is not that I have not answered his point. I have answered his point already in response to an earlier point of order, but the simple fact is that the hon. Gentleman does not like my answer, and I am afraid I cannot do anything about that.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Tonight, we will be debating motion (E) on a confirmatory public vote, but this House voted on a confirmatory public vote, and I believe it gathered only 85 votes at the time. I am just wondering, Mr Speaker, why that motion, which was so roundly rejected by this House—it was not even supported by those on the Labour Benches—is worthy of another debate. Perhaps it should be kicked out.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me. I may have misheard her, but I thought she said something about 85 votes. From memory—I do not have it in front of me, although I can easily find it; it would not be very difficult—I think I am right in saying that the vote for the confirmatory public vote, for a confirmatory referendum, received 268 votes and was defeated—

[Mrs Main]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady is shaking her head, but I am trying to answer the point. I think it received 268 votes and was opposed by 295, so it was defeated. But again, if the hon. Lady will forgive me, and even if she won’t, I repeat the point that this is part of a process for which the House voted. Colleagues did so in the knowledge that a result might not be achieved on day one or even necessarily on day two, but the House wanted that process to take place. It may be—I have not looked at the Division list and it is absolutely her right—that the hon. Lady voted against this process altogether, and I completely respect her autonomy in making that judgment, but the House chose to adopt the process. What I have done and am doing is entirely in keeping with the spirit of that process.

[Mrs Main]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Is it is further to that point of order? I am not sure there is a further to.

[Mrs Main]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The 85 votes I am referring to relate to the motion brought before the House by the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston).

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry. I did not realise that was what the hon. Lady was saying. Okay, but my point about the discrete process we are undertaking and the level of support for that particular motion stands. What I have tried to do—I say this not least so that our proceedings are intelligible to those who are not Members of the House but are watching—is identify those propositions that appear to command substantial support, preferably of a cross-party nature. That is what I have done. It does seem to me, if I may say so, that although it cannot please everybody it is quite a reasonable approach, as opposed to, for example, identifying a series of propositions that have minimal support and thinking that it would be a frightfully good sport instead to submit them to a verdict of the House again. That would not seem to me a particularly constructive way in which to proceed. I am for a constructive approach and I hope most of the House will agree with me that that is how we should operate.

Can we now move to the main debate? I call the Father of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), he who owns motion (C) on the customs union, to address the House.

Business of the House

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Yesterday, we did things differently in this House. We voted on eight options, most of which we had never given five minutes debate to, which I found rather upsetting. We had not had any legal advice on any of them and they were all, quite wisely, roundly thrown out by the House. Does the Leader of the House agree that when we look at the figures, which are quite stark, we see that meaningful vote 2 had a majority of 123 over the top prize winner yesterday and had significant majorities over everything that happened yesterday? Given that the two options that I supported yesterday dropped off the list, may I ask if it is possible, if we are going down this beauty contest route, that we ensure that something that got more support in the House is not ruled out by you, Mr Speaker, that we all have to look at what we might wish to support, and that you, Mr Speaker, will look at the ruling on the one that had the top number of 391 —over the second referendum’s 268—and ensure that that is now not ruled out because of some ruling by yourself?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That has very little to do with the business of the House for next week. I do not say this in any spirit of discourtesy to the hon. Lady, but I am perfectly conscious of and capable of executing my responsibilities in relation to that business and all other business. The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) is in the lead on the matter. Procedural propriety has been observed and he is perfectly clear with other colleagues as to the basis, sanctioned by the passage of the business of the House motion, on which we will proceed in these matters. I am sorry if the hon. Lady is not clear about the matter, but there is no basis for that ambiguity.

Points of Order

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman makes a compelling case, and it will have been heard by colleagues. For my part, in so far as he exhorts me to seek to facilitate manuscript amendments and so on, I am inclined to say to him that I shall always profit by his counsels. I always have done and I dare say I always will do.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to the point of order made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) about people being in tears, I think all of us here are grown up enough to be able to see that we need to do what we feel is absolutely right when we vote. The great Mr Forth used to say that whipping was optional. It is important that we bear in mind that we cannot allow the sensitivities of colleagues over feeling pressurised one way or another to stop us having a full choice. I am aware of 30 colleagues who have changed their minds on the meaningful vote, so I absolutely do not feel that those of us who have not committed to it yet should not have the ability to change our minds and have it back again. I am feeling rather frustrated that the two options that I supported yesterday will probably not make their way through the beauty contest, as I have described it, and I therefore reserve the right to wish to have meaningful vote 3, if am to pair it off against what I now see as the ugly sisters of the options.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady expresses her disappointment with the verdicts of the House on propositions legitimately submitted to it yesterday. She did that earlier in our proceedings and has thought it worthwhile to repeat and underline her point. She is perfectly entitled to her view, but it will have to be considered by colleagues alongside that just proffered by the right hon. Member for New Forest East. Conventions exist for a purpose, and I very politely say that the validity of a convention is not dependent upon a headcount at a particular time. The whole point of having a rule is that it is judged to be of value. The fact that somebody suddenly thinks it is not convenient does not mean it should be discarded.

[Mrs Main]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

No, I am not debating the issue with the hon. Lady. [Interruption.] No, it is not a debate. She has raised a point of order. I have answered it. The right hon. Member for New Forest East very courteously raised his, and it was answered, and other colleagues might also wish to raise points. We always need to have a sense of other.

Sittings of the House (29 March)

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think that matter is governed by Standing Orders, so the short answer to the right hon. Gentleman is no, that is not possible. It is perfectly possible for there to be urgent questions tomorrow. He may say that that is too late and that it does not fit with his timetable, but I am simply making the point that there is no bar to urgent questions on a Friday. Typically, if there are such, they would come on at 11 o’clock—there were three, in fact, last Friday, if memory serves me correctly—but obviously, urgent questions interrupt a debate without changing the time of the end of the debate. That is the factual position. The opportunity is there, but there is a time consequence.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) might have inadvertently misled the House when she said that she had only just got sight of the motion. I have been having quite detailed discussions with the deputy Clerk of the House about procedures for the next few days. Indeed, he took me to the Table Office, and there was the motion for me to have a copy of at 4 o’clock, so I am surprised that the hon. Lady took an hour and a half to find this out.

[Mr Speaker]

The shadow Leader of the House can answer for herself, but I simply say to the hon. Lady that if she is referring to the motion for tomorrow’s debate, that motion certainly was not in the Table Office at 4 o’clock, as far as I am aware. I discussed the matter with the Attorney General, and I can assure her that it certainly was not there at that time, or absolutely not in anywhere near its final form. I think I am quite clear about that. As to the sittings motion, that is a different matter.

[Mr Speaker]

These things are subject to change. There was a version of the motion earlier this afternoon. The Attorney General and I met, as is perfectly reasonable and proper, and then there was a later version. However, I am quite certain in my own mind that the motion was not in the Table Office at 4 o’clock, and I think that the shadow Leader of the House has been misrepresented, if I may politely say so.

[Mrs Main]

I believe that. Thank you very much.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for withdrawing what she said earlier, although I think the shadow Leader of the House would have liked an apology. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady has withdrawn what she said. [Interruption.] I am happy with that. We will leave it there.

UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

Thursday 14th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is not to conclude anything in respect of my views; the hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member of this House and what he can conclude from the selection is that key propositions will be put to the House. If people agree with those propositions they will presumably vote in support of those amendments, and if they disagree with those propositions they will presumably vote against those amendments. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying so, I think that point is pretty clear.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Now that there has been clarity on which amendments have been selected, I am somewhat concerned about amendment (h), because it does seem to imply a certain heavy cost to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in having to fund all this. Can we have some figures associated with what the cost of conducting a public vote would be? I simply ask for clarity on that matter.

[Mr Speaker]

That is not a matter for me. The reality is that that amendment is perfectly orderly. If the hon. Lady disapproves of that amendment, and, more specifically and narrowly, if she wishes to ascertain further and better particulars either about the meaning of the amendment in terms of words or in terms of the mindset of the mover, that is a matter that will be extracted in the course of debate.

Business of the House

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

Monday 10th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I should say—and I am trying to help the House, but what others seek to do is a matter for them—that, so far as I am concerned, it is very clear that the amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) was agreed to by the House and that that amendment stands unless it is specifically repealed by a subsequent decision of the House. Unless I am mistaken—colleagues will correct me if I am wrong—that was the assurance that Members were seeking. I say on advice—and I do say so on advice —that it is a very straightforward point, the thrust of which I think I have pretty easily confirmed.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

It is a shame we did not conclude much earlier that the vote was not going to be passed, because we would not have had to go two thirds of the way through the debate. It cannot be right that we do not have a further five days when it is brought back. Everybody puts in to speak in a debate at the time, and, in theory, if we only tag on another couple of days, some colleagues will get to speak twice and some will not get to speak at all. Several hundred people have already spoken and several hundred more wish to speak. It cannot be right for the debate to be limited to two days—potentially—because it will mean that some colleagues will never have a bite at that cherry, whatever side of the House they are on.

Points of Order

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

Monday 3rd December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It is always best if letters sent to me are received and seen by me before they are seen by others, but I will address the substantive responsibility that is invested in me—that is frankly a different and on the whole rather more important matter, but I always treat the hon. Gentleman and all Members with courtesy. I note what he said and I issued my response in the first sentence of my reply to him.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As usual, you have called every Member of the House who wished to ask a question, but the convention of the House is that we have no rebuttal or right to come back on any questions asked. Given that the Attorney General said that he was happily going to answer any questions, as someone with no legal background I feel that I have had to play guess the question of what we may need to know that we have not been able to ask. Would it be in order for the House to table a series of questions to be answered—anything that they would have liked to put to the Attorney General, but did not get the opportunity to ask—and for those to be answered as quickly as possible to give us more information than we could glean today?

[Mr Speaker]

Let me say in all courtesy that I am not sure, given the pressure of time, of the practicality of the arrangement that the hon. Lady is advocating. For the avoidance of doubt, however, let me say to her that I have no reason to doubt either her legitimately insatiable appetite for interrogation—a very proper appetite in a committed parliamentarian, which she is—or indeed, that of the Attorney General to respond to questions. Therefore, in an ideal world, I would be quite open to the idea that there could be further questioning. As the House will know, I am an unusual fellow—I enjoy few things more than listening to my colleagues asking questions and Ministers answering them, which is probably quite useful really, given that that is what the Speaker of the House is expected to do. However, we have come up against the matter of practicality, and although the hon. Lady may now have her head filled with questions that she wishes she had asked, but has not done so, we have to progress and expedite matters. I hope that she will feel pleased that she has at least asked a question, and she can make her own assessment as to the quality of the answer. If, separately, she wishes to beetle up to her right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, I feel sure that she will be greeted with the courtesy that he invariably displays.

Universal Credit Roll-out

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

Wednesday 18th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) has just been promoted. The Secretary of State needs to gesticulate whom he means with greater clarity.

[Mrs Main]

I thank the Secretary of State for that promotion. I look forward to receiving it in the post.

Is the Secretary of State any more aware than I am of the topic of this debate? Yesterday, the Opposition wanted to fix universal credit. Today, the word “fix” has been dropped. It seems that the Opposition want to pause but not fix. Has he any greater awareness of this matter?

Early Parliamentary General Election

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

Wednesday 19th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Main]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

If the hon. Lady must.

[Mrs Main]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Twice the hon. Gentleman has accused Members of cheating. There is no proof of cheating and he should withdraw the remarks.

[Mr Speaker]

I think it is a matter of taste rather than of order, but the hon. Lady has made her point with force and alacrity, and it is on the record. Had the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) concluded his oration?

NHS Funding

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

Monday 31st October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I did not hear the offending term, but if it has been reported to me accurately, and the Clerks are invariably accurate in these matters, it seems to me to be a matter of taste, rather than of order.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

It is regrettable that the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), has led this attack on a Government who are doing so much. Will my right hon. Friend tell me what more is being done to recoup the money that should have been clawed back from those who had health insurance and who should not have used our system?

Points of Order

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is being a bit cheeky. I know of no such plan. The hon. Gentleman is an assiduous constituency representative and he is a politician. He knows very well that all sorts of things are speculated upon and made the subject of conversation and rumour. All I know is what concerns the business of the House today. What people say outside the House is a matter for them. If people have important things to say on public policy—between now and next Thursday, for example—it would perhaps be prudent and judged to be courteous to say them in the House of Commons.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure it was an error on the part of the Leader of the Opposition, but he said that there were no boats outside on the Terrace—[Interruption.] On the Thames by the Terrace. May I confirm that the Wayward Lad was certainly giving voice, in a way that concerned some of the river authorities? These boats were indeed saying “Vote Leave”, and some of them have spent three days coming up the river to convey their views to those on Terrace. We wish them well.

Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I seek leave to propose that the House should debate a specific and important matter for urgent consideration—namely, the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016.

As you are aware, Mr Speaker, this is a time-sensitive EU diktat that is allocated to the Government as a negative statutory instrument. Unless the Government provide any time to discuss it, it will just pass through. The Backbench Business Committee is not reconvened and has met only twice since these regulations were brought in. They were tabled in April, and since then, I have had cross-party support for my early-day motion.

The tobacco regulations will have a huge impact on the vaping and harm-reduction products industry if these regulations pass beyond their praying date of 15 June, yet the House will not have had an opportunity to debate this important matter. Only two months ago, the Royal College of Physicians warned:

“Promoting wider use of consumer nicotine products, such as e-cigarettes, could…substantially increase the number of smokers who quit”

and

“is therefore likely to generate significant health gains in the UK.”

Last year, Public Health England found that e-cigarettes were 95% less harmful than smoking.

Our own Prime Minister said to me in a letter:

“Our view, based on all the evidence available, is that e-cigarettes can help smokers quit and that they are considerably less harmful to the health than continuing to smoke tobacco products.”

Perversely, however, these particular regulations, which we have not yet discussed or debated, will seek to impose severe limits on advertising for vaping products, and bring e-cigarettes under the same regulatory framework as cigarettes. Lord Prior, the Health Minister in the House of Lords said in May that

“we wish people to quit altogether but if, as a way of quitting, they can give up smoking and take up vaping, that is something that we wish to encourage.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 May 2016; Vol. 771, c. 77.]

I sincerely hope that the House will be given the opportunity to consider this matter under Standing Order No. 24 as the deleterious impact of these regulations on smoking cessation and public health shows that we really should give these Brussels regulations some serious consideration before absorbing them.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady asks leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016. I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady’s application, but I am not persuaded that this matter is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24.

I add that if there is significant interest in this matter, either in the House or beyond it, it might be regarded as helpful if, through the usual channels, a debate on it were arranged. I express myself in those relatively careful and understated terms, for it is not within the remit of the Chair. That judgment has to be made elsewhere. The hon. Lady, who is an indefatigable parliamentarian, has made her case with force and eloquence. If I have learned anything about her over the last 11 years when we have served in the House together, I suspect that it is pretty unlikely that she will let go of the bone.

Points of Order

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

Wednesday 25th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, points of order. It is usually at least a three-course meal in my experience. We will start with Anne Main.

[Mrs Main]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just heard the Chancellor say that we should debate the substance and not the process in our debates on the EU referendum. As I let you know this morning, Mr Speaker, I have tried to do exactly that. I have written numerous questions, but I am basically getting answers that say, “Talk to the hand.” I approached the Procedure Committee, which admitted that I have not had substantial answers, or indeed any answers, to some questions. What more can be done? The Government are trying to muzzle those of us who are trying to get to the truth of all this. They are trying to ensure that we do not get any answers. The Government are acting disgracefully, and I am ashamed at their behaviour.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order and for her courtesy in giving me advance notice of its thrust. I also note that she has expressed her disappointment in the Government in very forceful terms. She is most assiduous in pursuing this matter, and I say to her that it is, to put it mildly, regrettable that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is late in responding to a request from the Procedure Committee. That should not happen. If there is a Whip on the Treasury Bench, he or she should note that it is frankly unacceptable. If there is not, that message should be relayed to the relevant Whip sooner rather than later. I am sure that the lapse, which will be very unsatisfactory, not least to the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), and his colleagues on the Committee, will have been noted on the Treasury Bench. I hope that it will be duly communicated to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.

If the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) has tabled questions that are orderly—they would not be on the Order Paper unless they were adjudged to be orderly—they should receive replies and quickly. My advice to the hon. Lady is to look for those replies each day from now on. If she does not get them, I rather imagine that she will return to the subject. In the interests of propriety, however, the Department should now provide those answers. Its performance is unsatisfactory. I do not want to use the word “shameful”, but it is unsatisfactory.

Dublin System: Asylum

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

Wednesday 4th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Main]

I thank the Minister for his statement, although I am somewhat concerned that it will be three months before we know what this will look like in reality, given that we have a very important referendum coming up in that time.

The Minister said in February that the Dublin agreement

“should be upheld, not undermined.”—[Official Report, 29 February 2016; Vol. 606, c. 689.]

In theory, the Dublin asylum regulations ensure that EU countries can deport refugees to their first port of entry, as he just re-confirmed. The Secretary of State recently restated her view

“that amending the Dublin regulation is unnecessary and risks undermining a vital tool in managing asylum claims within the EU.”—[Official Report, 2 December 2015; Vol. 603, c. 21WS.]

However, the EU Commission is pressing ahead with reforms despite her views, and despite many European countries expressing their extreme disquiet. Under the existing rules, Britain ostensibly, as the Minister said, has the right to deport asylum seekers to their first port of entry. However, in practice that means—he gave a figure—that only 1% of asylum seekers from the UK each year have been relocated to the first port of entry, according to Eurostat. Does he accept that this very low figure of only 1% for relocations is accurate? If so, will he explain why the UK is performing so badly under the current regulations?

In practice, the Dublin agreement is very far from perfect, and the EU is desperate to find ways of evening out the strains from the large numbers of asylum seekers, as well as of not rocking the British boat before our referendum. Even the European Commission has acknowledged that the current Dublin system does not work. Germany has all but abandoned it, and Greece has apparently not abided by it since 2011. The Commission has stated:

“Even where Member States accept transfer requests, only about a quarter of such cases result in effective transfers, and, after completion of a transfer, there are frequent cases of secondary movements back to the transferring Member State”.

Does the Minister accept that even with relocations as low as 1%, we are often obliged to re-admit individuals under the secondary transfer process? Does he have figures for the House on how many are relocated back to the United Kingdom? Given the low numbers sent back to the first port of entry under this system, and the fact that many of them return, does he still believe that this is a good deal for Britain? Despite the haggling and horse-trading going on behind closed doors as we speak, has the Secretary of State secured a permanent and favourable opt-out from any form of quota sharing—an opt-out that cannot be overruled at any point in future by other member countries? It is important to know that at this moment.

These proposals are part of a package to try to manage the surge in migrants and refugees flooding into Europe. The Commission is in the process of proposing measures revising the terms of the Dublin regulation—namely, imposing a financial penalty of €250,000 for every refugee not taken by a country if another member state experiences a sudden influx. How will this new quota/penalty system proposal sit with the current Dublin III proposal that the Minister says he wishes to stay within? Has he secured a permanent and favourable opt-out from any form of penalty payment that might be negotiated in future for non-acceptance of quotas—one that could not be overruled at any point in future by other member countries?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the Minister responds, two points should be made. First, I say in all courtesy and gently to the hon. Lady that she modestly exceeded her time allocation, but I am sure that that was inadvertent and will not be repeated on subsequent occasions.

Secondly, equally courteously and gently, I say to the Minister, with reference to his final sentence commending his statement to the House, that he did not make a statement to the House. The Government could perfectly well have volunteered a statement to the House, but the reason the right hon. Gentleman is in the Chamber is that I required a Minister to attend the Chamber to answer the urgent question—capital U, capital Q—from the hon. Lady. It may seem a fine distinction to those attending our proceedings, but it is quite an important one. The right hon. Gentleman is here involuntarily and not voluntarily. I hope the position is now clear.

Points of Order

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

Monday 11th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Well, it is certainly a very rum business altogether. I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of this point of order. I mean it when I say that I understand her frustration that she is not securing clear answers to her questions. The handling of freedom of information requests by the FCA, or indeed any other public body, is not a matter for the Chair of this House to determine. However, she has made her concern explicitly clear on the record, and it will no doubt have been heard on the Treasury Bench. Indeed, I was going to say that there is an illustrious representative of Her Majesty’s Treasury on the Front Bench, but there is a veritable troika of the characters. There they sit, the three of them. I can therefore say with certainty that they have heard her grievance.

My overall advice to the hon. Lady—I hope that she will not take this in the wrong spirit as it is meant to be helpful—is to be persistent. If the hon. Lady does not secure the answers that she wants, she should keep asking questions and, in the very best and most proper sense of the term, make an absolutely parliamentary nuisance of herself. In the end, it may well be felt that it is not worth the candle so far as those resisting her inquiries thus far are concerned. She should stick at it.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have just had a debate about the leaflet that the Government are putting out. We were told about “facts”, and I said that the amount of legislation that comes from the European Union in Brussels was not included in there. I cited a figure of about 60%, to which the Minister for Europe responded, “No, no, it is about 13% to 14%.” I had been given that answer by the Prime Minister in March and I subsequently went to the Library to ask Vaughne Miller what the actual amount of legislation from Europe was. I asked:

“Can we still rely upon the figure quoted (from a 2010 research paper…)?”

The answer I received was:

“The 13%-15% figure…only covers EU Directives and Decisions. It does not include EU Regulations, which are numerous but implemented directly, without further UK measures. EU Directives are the detailed EU laws which require further implementation measures in the UK (almost always by S.I. but occasionally by an Act of Parliament).

I updated the 2010 paper in January 2015”.

The UK’s implementation had grown. She went on to mention a formula that she had used and then said:

“I have only calculated this figure up to 2013, but as you see, it raises the percentage to an average of 59%”.

I believe that by repeating this low figure of 13% to 15% an absolute misleading of the House, perhaps inadvertently, is taking place. That is not a figure that can be accurately relied on and if the Government are to put such figures out there, they should use the most up-to-date information, commissioned by the House, by our respected expert in the House, who said 59%. What can we do to correct that error, which the Minister has repeated after the Prime Minister gave me that figure in March? It is not to be relied on and the British public should not rely on it.

[Mr Speaker]

I say two things to the hon. Lady. First, as she well knows, she has found her own salvation through the ingenious use of the point of order procedure. Secondly—this is not uncommon in this place—I do not think she will seek to contradict me, and neither will anyone else, when I say that in raising her point of order she was vastly more interested in what she had to say to me and to the House than in anything I might have to say to her.

Point of Order

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

Monday 14th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 7 March, I tabled a question which asked the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills whether he would publish any contingency plans that his Department has made on trade agreements in the event of the UK’s exit from the EU. I received this answer today:

“At the February European Council, the Government negotiated a new settlement, giving the United Kingdom a special status in a reformed European Union. The Government’s position, as set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the House on 22 February, is that the UK will be stronger, safer and better off remaining in a reformed EU.”

That is not an answer to my question. I believe that, at the time of the Iraq inquiry, Lord Justice Scott agreed that it was parliamentary protocol that questions must be given a substantive answer. Is it possible that, through your good offices, Mr Speaker, I can get an answer to that particular question?

[Mr Speaker]

As the hon. Lady knows, the Chair is not responsible for the content of answers. There is a general presumption in favour of answers to questions that are both timely and substantive. If, however, the hon. Lady is dissatisfied with the substance of the reply, which she believes fails adequately to respond—or to respond at all—to her inquiry, she has two recourses open to her, neither of which involves the Chair. One is to table further questions with that dogged persistence for which she has become renowned over the past nearly 11 years in the House, and the other is to complain to the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), with a view to securing an inquiry into the approach by Ministers to providing answers to parliamentary questions. I hope that that constitutes an adequate answer to the hon. Lady, who has aired her concern today.

Energy Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)

Ordered,

That the Order of 18 January 2016 (Energy Bill [Lords] (Programme)) be varied as follows:

1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.

2. Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.

3. The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table.

Points of Order

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

Monday 29th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

As I think the hon. Gentleman knows—I say this in response to his spurious point of order—he has achieved his objective. He should consider the matter so advertised.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I am not sure there is a “further” to that point of order, but I will hear it first and then come to a view about it.

[Mrs Main]

I read out the self-same question and answer, which uses the words “may have a bearing”. At what point may we have an explanation of what “may have a bearing” means? Who will arbitrate on that?

[Mr Speaker]

That is a matter for the Government. Legendarily, the Minister for the Cabinet Office is always keen to address the House—indeed, in the past he has likened himself to Disraeli, who had a notable enthusiasm for addressing the House. If he wishes to respond to the hon. Lady with that legendary succinctness for which he is renowned, we are happy to hear from him, but he is not under any obligation to do so.

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I think I answered that point. The question is how we make sure that the guidance means that civil servants follow the Government position, including on the in/out question, which is the only question on which Ministers can move from the Government position. So it is a question of whether something is an in/out question or is normal EU business. I think I set that out earlier; I might have said the same.

[Mrs Main]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

We are extremely grateful to the Minister. I am not sure, from the head movements of the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), that he has satisfied her, but I am not sure any Minister would have been able to do so. None the less, the Minister has graciously come to the Dispatch Box.

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I am a little disappointed, because I wrote to the Public Bill Committee and asked whether it would consider an amendment, but I gather there was not time for it to do so. This is probably the only time I can raise the matter I want to mention today because, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) said, the debates will be quite crowded. When there are huge pieces of infrastructure work such as the proposed 3.5 million square foot rail freight development in my constituency, there is no obligation on developers at least to consider green, environmental measures. It is a loss that we will not get to debate that today.

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, but I think that probably relates to amendments that it might have been in someone’s mind to table, but which have not yet been tabled and do not relate directly to the programme motion. However, the hon. Lady has opted for an elastic interpretation of the terms of the motion, and she has got her points on the record, so I hope she is content.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

Monday 10th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I assume the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) calculated that Question 19 on Ofsted would not be reached. That is not of itself an excuse to shoehorn the matter into a question some considerable number of minutes earlier.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree with me that one of the best indicators to getting good attainment in maths and English is attendance at school? So what more can be done to ensure communities who do not always have a very good attendance record at school—sometimes the Traveller community, as in my constituency—are encouraged to make sure parents ensure their children attend school in settled fashion?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister help to get justice for my constituents, who want to know why an investigation into the meetings that were had by Theresa Villiers, the former Transport Minister, has not been reported on, despite four months of waiting and various assurances that I would have the answer?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady was referring to the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers).

Immigration Bill

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

Tuesday 22nd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I can understand the passion with which the hon. Lady is speaking and she is making a very sensitive point, but does she agree that there is an element to this that involves the prevention of exploitation of vulnerable people who are brought in illegally, treated badly and fall outside the system? If their pimps and traffickers are unable to do that because we have tougher immigration laws, we will free those people from being put in that awful position. I had a young lady brought to me whose passport had been taken off her. If people can come to our country legally, it will stop those who want to be able to take advantage of them outside the system.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I ask hon. Members to make interventions that are brief? We have a lot of colleagues to accommodate and I am keen to do so.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On the Floor of the House today, we heard many times that the Bill should be committed to a Committee of the whole House. The Minister was asked whether that was possible, and he gave his reasons why he believed not. For clarification, Mr Speaker, and before we vote on the programme motion, is it possible to have split Committee proceedings, with some upstairs, facilitating what the Minister would like to happen, and some on the Floor of the House?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her attempted point of order. Her point might be interesting, but that does not render it a point of order on which I can rule. Her view, no doubt informed by a close reading of Standing Order No. 84A(2), will assuredly guide her and perhaps other right hon. and hon. Members on how to vote on the programme motion, which is about to be moved by or on behalf of the Minister.

MARRIAGE (SAME SEX COUPLES) BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill:

Committal

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 12 March 2013.

3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

4. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.

5. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the second day.

6. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.

7. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

8. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Mark Lancaster.)

Points of Order

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order; it will have been heard on the Treasury Bench. As an experienced Member he knows that it is for Ministers to decide whether to come to the House to make a statement, but the Home Secretary will, I feel sure, be conscious of these matters and may feel that their seriousness warrants a statement sooner rather than later.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that you champion Back Benchers and their role in holding the Government to account, but it is particularly difficult for Back Benchers such as me, whose constituency contains a proposed rail freight interchange, to find out what happened in the decision-making process. The Department for Transport has been fulsome in its answers, but the same questions to the Treasury and the Department for Communities and Local Government are answered either by referring me to websites or by saying that it would involve disproportionate cost.

Referring an hon. Member to a website does not always work and I have found out about private meetings that are not declared on websites. What more can be done to ensure that Departments do not hide behind evasive answers when Back Benchers are trying to find out about the decision-making process that has gone on?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order, and for notice of it. The content of answers is not a matter of order for the Chair, and neither is inconsistency in the way Ministers reply to similar questions. If the hon. Lady is dissatisfied with the answers she has received, she should draw the matter to the attention of the Procedure Committee. Moreover, I add in passing that without regard to the particulars of the case, with which I cannot be expected to be familiar, I have considerable sympathy for the hon. Lady in so far as she is aggrieved by the tendency of some Departments simply to refer right hon. or hon. Members to a website. That is often unavailing, and the intention of Ministers should be to help Members in pursuit of their parliamentary duties. In the best cases, that is what happens, but it ought to be the norm.

Gas Market Fraud

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A great many hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I remind the House that there is a debate to follow, under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee, on child sexual exploitation, which I can inform Members is significantly subscribed, so if colleagues are not to be disappointed now, there is a premium on brevity from Back and Front Benchers alike.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I welcome today’s statement. Can I have an assurance that if it is proved that there has been market manipulation, there might be some form of redress for people in fuel poverty in my constituency and others who may have suffered as a consequence?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If the hon. Lady’s intended supplementary question refers to York, it will be in order. If it does not, it will not.

[Mrs Main]

Staffing numbers are a huge concern in the CPS. Will the Solicitor-General meet me to discuss what impact that might have had on the case of Mrs Swarnapali Timmann, who is concerned—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Does the question relate to York or other locations in York?

[Mrs Main]

It may do.

[Mr Speaker]

And it may not. The hon. Lady has got her point on the record, but it requires no answer. [Laughter.] I am glad that the House is in such a good mood.

Annual Statements of Healthcare Costs

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

It is with some regret that I rise to raise concerns about this proposal—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. For the avoidance of doubt, procedure requires that the hon. Lady should not only raise concerns about the Bill but also oppose it.

[Mrs Main]

And to oppose it. I have no doubts about the intentions of my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), for whom I have great respect, as someone who works in the health service. I have serious doubts, however, about the impact of the Bill and the message that it will give to people who are extremely concerned about the future role of health services.

Not so long ago, certain things were routinely prescribed on the NHS that we would now find it ludicrous to prescribe. My mother used to work in an old-fashioned system called the pricing bureau, and people would routinely bring in “scripts” for zinc and castor oil cream or cotton wool. Now, we would find it amazing to see such things on an NHS prescription. We have moved on, and accepted that the NHS cannot provide for everything in our lives. I would welcome a debate on some of the services that people expect the NHS to provide, such as cosmetic surgery, tattoo removal, or even in vitro fertilisation cycles for people of certain ages. That would be a valuable debate, because, as my hon. Friend so wisely says, we have to think about the future and adopt a sustainable, affordable model for the NHS.

However, I believe that giving a person and their family an annual statement of their cost to the NHS could be profoundly divisive. I am concerned, for example, about the effect that it could have on people who have served in our armed forces and come back with life-shattering injuries. They might have had to make difficult decisions about their lives, having been made limbless in the service of their country. What mental effect could it have on them to be told every year what their treatment is costing their country?

Similarly, what mental effect could it have on people who feel that their lives are not worth living, and that they are being burdensome, to be told that there is a tariff associated with their ongoing care? What effect could it have on a family who have fought long and hard for a child with cystic fibrosis or another life-limiting condition, to be sent a bill or tariff, after the child had died, setting out what their child’s life had cost? I believe that such experiences would be unsettling and distasteful for some people.

I am also concerned—I am sure this is a leap that goes way beyond any of my hon. Friend’s intentions—about the Kafkaesque situation that might result, whereby we would start to look at people in the context of how costly they were to keep going, and whether their life was worth that expenditure. If people are made to feel that they are responsible for their own health, whether that is because of obesity, smoking or drinking, so be it, but I am not sure that presenting people with a breakdown of what it has cost to treat them will necessarily make them change their ways.

Having nursed somebody who died from cancer, I can tell hon. Members that people feel like a burden when their life is in a difficult place. They will often say, “I wish I wasn’t doing this to you, to the family, or to others. If I wasn’t around, perhaps you could collect on the insurance, or your life could move on in a different and happier way.” I feel that adding an extra burden for families in such a position, through sending them a breakdown of the annual cost to the NHS, would be unacceptable. That is not a voice that I wish to see coming from the Government, and I do not believe that this suggestion should ever become a Bill. I am comforted by the fact that most ten-minute rule Bills never get anywhere.

If I thought that this ten-minute rule Bill would get somewhere, I would go around soliciting support and testing the waters in Parliament to see whether anybody else shared my concerns. I accept that my hon. Friend simply wishes to ensure that people get the best treatment according to an affordable model, and that people who are being feckless with their own health should be made to face up to and be aware of that fact, but I do not think that having an individual statement of their health care costs that year will make those people change their ways. It might—this is why I oppose the Bill, although I do not intend to press it to a Division—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] If other hon. Members wish to divide the House, that is up to them, but I have not made arrangements to do so.

I was concerned that the Bill might go unchallenged, because ten-minute rule Bills often are, and I thought through some of the possibilities that, although they are not necessarily implied in my hon. Friend’s plans for his Bill, could creep through if what he has been describing took effect. I was concerned enough to raise my worries today, and to think that if the information locked in the NHS about individuals’ costs were made public, it could be used by the people who argue that we should not save seriously sick people, or treat people with complex needs, or value people with disabilities, because the tariff associated with them is higher than the cost for a healthy person. That is not a society that I wish to endorse, and that is why I wanted to raise my concerns.

Question put (Standing Order No. 23).

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

Wednesday 25th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. Is it appropriate parliamentary language for a Member of Parliament to call other hon. Members neanderthals, particularly when they have not even been anywhere near the debate or participated or engaged in it? Do you think that that is a somewhat judgmental statement?

[Mr Speaker]

Well, I think if we are going to have a prohibition on judgmentalism, we are setting ourselves rather than exacting test. What I would say to the hon. Lady is twofold. First, I am not aware, though it is not relevant to the appropriateness of her point of order, who the target of this intended abuse was—although I could try to speculate about it—but secondly, if the target of the intended abuse is at least one Member that I can think of, I rather imagine that far from complaining about it, he will take it as the greatest possible compliment that has ever been paid to him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

Thursday 15th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Further to an answer that I received in September, in which the House of Commons Commission said that it costs the public purse a further £1.5 million for us to come back for the two-week September sitting, is it not time that we looked carefully at the programme of sittings of the House so that we are not constrained—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not wish to be unkind to the hon. Lady. I am sure that her question is of great importance to her and possibly to others, but it suffers from the disadvantage of bearing absolutely no relation to the question on the Order Paper.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Second time lucky, Anne Main.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Thank you for your indulgence, Mr Speaker. Again, September sittings will cost £1.5 million. Is it not time that the House moved its sittings so as not to cost the public purse an extra £1.5 million?

Feed-in Tariffs

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

Monday 31st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is not said pejoratively, but I have noticed that whenever the Minister is in the Chamber, Opposition Members seem to get very wound up and excited. I do not know whether it is his fault that he winds them up or their fault that they allow themselves to be wound up, but the House needs to calm down a little.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I appreciate that something had to be done about the overly large tariff subsidies, but Electrical and Testing Services in my constituency is worried about the speed of change. What advice and guidance will my hon. Friend give to small businesses so that they can get through the transition period without having to lose any staff?

Points of Order

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving me advance notice of it. He came into the House long before I did; he is a seasoned campaigner and a man of great wisdom and experience. He will therefore know that I am not responsible—I say this with some relief—for anything that the Prime Minister might say or do. That is well beyond my ken. The right hon. Gentleman has placed his concerns on the record, and I am sure that he will find other methods, through the use of the Order Paper and other parliamentary processes, of further registering his views and probing the Prime Minister.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am seeking your guidance because we are due to have an Opposition day debate tomorrow whose title is as yet totally unspecified. That means that members of the public who wish to attend the debate will have had no notice of the subject, and hon. Members who might wish to prepare for the debate have no cognisance of it. I understand that 48 hours’ notice is normally given of such debates and their titles. May we seek your guidance on why that courtesy is not being extended to us?

Points of Order

Debate between Anne Main and John Bercow

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving me advance notice of it.

I shall deal with this briefly, and in two parts. First, my guidance on the courtesies and conventions of the House states that the House has agreed to the use in the Chamber of hand-held devices to keep up to date with e-mails, provided that they cause no disturbance. All such devices may be switched on as long as they are in silent mode. Members should not use electronic devices as an aide memoire in debate.

Secondly—and the hon. Gentleman referred to this—the Procedure Committee reported last week on this matter and the House will soon want to debate its report. In the meantime, I do not think that the occupant of the Chair can reasonably prevent a Member from discreetly using such a device as an aide memoire in debate. Members should remember to send any notes, electronically or not, to Hansard. I hope—I reiterate this forcefully—that the House will soon reach a view on this in order, apart from anything else, to assist the Chair.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In an earlier exchange with the Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) seemed to imply that he possessed leaked information about a cancellation or compromise of the crisis loans scheme. Will you advise me on how we can get accurate information on this matter, as it has been raised on the Floor of the House?

[Mr Speaker]

I have a feeling that the hon. Lady’s expectations of the scope of my powers are unrealistic, however generous-spirited they might be. It is extraordinarily good of her to think that these matters are within my compass, but I fear that unless I am gifted with talents that I do not possess I am unlikely to be able to satisfy her demands on this front. More widely, I would say very simply to her that hon. Members are responsible for their own statements, and if she wishes to follow up the matter with the hon. Member in question she is welcome to do so.