Points of Order Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Tuesday 15th March 2016

(8 years, 9 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Before we come to points of order, I need to make a short statement which I hope will help the House in the matter to come.

Owing to a printing error an incorrect version of the programme motion has been printed on the Order Paper. A corrigendum will be in the Vote Office and online shortly. The significant difference is that two days are proposed for consideration and Third Reading, rather than the one day referred to incorrectly on the Order Paper. The motion will be moved in the correct form after Second Reading. My understanding is that two days were wanted by all parties, so there should be rejoicing about this matter.

David Davis Portrait Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
- Hansard - -

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It was not a point of order, it was a statement, but the right hon. Gentleman usually has points of order before breakfast, before lunch and before dinner, so I am happy to hear his point of order.

David Davis Portrait Mr Davis
- Hansard - -

Between lunch and tea, now. In your statement, Mr Speaker, you said that two days had been agreed by all parties, but that was actually agreed by those on the Front Benches. Many of us believe that this enormous constitutional Bill balancing privacy and security requires four days on the Floor of the House, as there are at least a dozen major topics that need to be dealt with and we will not be able to do so in Committee. Can you advise us as Back Benchers, not Front Benchers, how on earth we get this Bill debated properly?

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

That is a fair point. I am not sure that it is a point of order, but the right hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to know that I respect his sincerity on these matters. What is wanted by Front Benchers is not necessarily the same as what is wanted by Back Benchers, as he has just demonstrated. I have no control over the programme motion. That is a matter for the House. All I can say is that if there is very strong cross-party feeling, I have a sense that Ministers will inevitably be on the receiving end of it. I do not have the list in front of me, but in so far as the right hon. Gentleman is subtly in the process of advertising his own interest in being called to speak, I think his effort has been successful.