Business of the House

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

Will the Leader of the House assure us that next week’s debate on Europe will be broad enough to encompass today’s opinion poll finding that 90% of the country wants to be within the single marketplace? Given that I want to be in the single marketplace, that I know the Leader of the House wants to be in the single marketplace and that anybody with an ounce of a sense understands that in this Trumpian world of protectionist economics where the special relationship means being 11th in the telephone queue for a call with the new American President, we had better be in the single marketplace, will the Leader of the House now get up to the Dispatch Box and tell us that he actually understands the difference between access to a marketplace, which the association of Patagonian shoe manufacturers has, and being within the single marketplace, which should be the overwhelming priority of the Government to secure?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Business questions are about understanding—that is the only slight difference.

[Mr Lidington]

I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, as the Prime Minister repeated yesterday, her declared objective is not just the maximum access for British companies to the European market, but the greatest possible freedom to operate within that market as well. Clearly, the detail of that future trading and investment relationship is going to be an absolutely core element of the negotiations that we intend to start next year. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be ingenious and experienced enough to find ways of weaving his particular concern into next week’s debate or indeed on other occasions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Let’s hear from a man who should be able to deliver well: Conor McGinn.

[Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. My Bill to introduce Helen’s law would deny parole to murderers who refuse to reveal the location of their victims’ remains. It has the support of 400,000 members of the public and many Members on both sides of the House, but will only become law if the Government support it or incorporate it into their legislative programme. Will the right hon. Gentleman and perhaps the Justice Secretary meet me and Helen’s mum, Marie McCourt, to discuss how we might work together on this?

Easter Adjournment

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend know that Stanmore’s Radio Brockley won the hospital station of the year award? It is a fantastic place, where I started out on my career in journalism, and it indeed needs a lot of support.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is great news, but could not the hon. Lady have saved that point for her speech? I am bothered about time at the moment.

[Bob Blackman]

I shall take your admonishment, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I want to give everyone equal time.

[Bob Blackman]

Absolutely.

We are on the cusp of the hospital’s redevelopment. We require the trust development authority to sign off the business case, and work will start on the orthopaedic hospital immediately, with the demolition of existing buildings, the building of a brand-new hospital, with a private hospital alongside it, and the creation of 300 new homes, which are desperately needed in Harrow. This is clearly being held up by NHS bureaucracy. The Chancellor granted the money back in 2010, yet we still await the start of the project.

On housing, my Harrow constituency has seen some 400 new starts, while there have been 560 new home completions in the last year alone, bringing new homes for my constituents. I am delighted that in the autumn spending review, the amount of money spent on housing is being more than doubled, which is something we should applaud.

Locally, we have heard some good news about schools. Park High School, St Bernadette’s, Canons High School and the Krishna Avanti school will all receive additional funding for massive improvements—almost complete rebuilding in some cases. There is also the Aylward school, which is in desperate need of new facilities. We have also had the go-ahead, thanks to this Government’s enlightened view, of Hujjat Primary School, which will be the first Muslim state-aided school, certainly in my constituency, and I strongly support it. Avanti House School will be the first state-aided Hindu school for secondary-aged children in the country. This is something of which we can be proud. It is being delivered in our multicultural society, and we are providing parents with the choice of education that they want for their children.

There is bad news, however. Harrow council has introduced the garden tax as part of its savings proposals. It is charging the princely sum of £75 for the service of collecting garden waste, and collecting it only once every three weeks. That is the highest charge in London. It is a scandal, because it is a monopoly service. So far, virtually no one has registered to use the service, but it is due to start on 1 April. What an appropriate date on which to launch such a foolish scheme. At the same time, fly-tipping and littering is a disaster. In Harrow, we are seeing fly-tipping all over the place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I must now introduce a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Standing Orders (Public Business)

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gerald Kaufman]

If the hon. Gentleman will just give me a moment.

I am troubled that this Government have decided to do this, because, as I said to William Hague when he first came to the House of Commons to announce this, it puts a stain on the Government. I really do think that it sullies the House of Commons.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), as always, made an effective speech. However, I disagreed with it because his amendments accept not the principle—there is no principle involved—but the basis of what the Government are proposing. I will not vote for any of the amendments because every one of them is based on an acceptance of what the Government are putting forward. I shall vote against the main motion at the end of what I regard as a day of shame for the House of Commons.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We need to put on a time limit in order to accommodate as many people as possible. We will start off with Bernard Jenkin on four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

The hon. Lady does not know the area of north-east Wales. In fact, she lost an election in north-east Wales in the constituency I now represent. She does not understand the nature of the business in north-east Wales. I have—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) suggested that I was not elected in the area that he represents, but I spent four years as a Welsh Assembly Member representing the whole of north Wales, including north-east Wales.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I hate to say it to the hon. Lady, but this is actually the House of Commons.

[Mr Hanson]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The point I am making is that my constituents depend on services that are based in England and they pay taxes to the Exchequer that also funds services in Belfast. The key issue is that I, as the MP representing my constituents, should have the right to walk through that door and speak on equal terms with Scottish Members, English Members, Welsh Members and indeed Northern Ireland Members.

Under the proposals before us, the Speaker will be required to certify a Bill. He will do so in a way that will make it impossible for me to speak in Committee because the Bill could be

“within the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales”.

Health is a Welsh Assembly competence, but my constituents use and depend on English health services, one third of my constituents were born in England and hospital maternity services are there for them. Am I to have that role no longer in this House? Am I supposed to be a second-class citizen? As I suggested in my intervention, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who has fought four elections in or near my constituency, lost every one and now sits in the other place, will have the same right as every Member—apart from myself and Scottish and Northern Ireland MPs—to speak on those matters. Lord Roberts of Llandudno, who has lost five elections in our area will have the same right to speak as other Members, but not me. I have been sent here six times by my constituents, and not once have I been asked to distinguish between the equality of Members of Parliament in this House.

English Votes for English Laws

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am not responsible. When you say “you” it means me, and I do not want to take that responsibility. It is down to the Leader of the House, and I am not going to let him shirk away from that.

[Chris Grayling]

I get the point that the hon. Gentleman was making. This is a simple matter. During the Scottish referendum campaign, the United Kingdom Parliament and Government made an offer to the Scottish people of additional devolution. That offer is encapsulated in the Scotland Bill, which is currently on its passage through the House. SNP Members would like more powers than are set out in the Smith commission report and the Scotland Bill. They are perfectly entitled to want that, but if it is the will of the United Kingdom Parliament not to proceed with those measures in Scotland, they will not happen. That is the way that this Parliament works.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin John Docherty (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Sit down now. We will not have two Members standing. It was an intervention and I will not have somebody shouting from the back row. We want—

[Martin John Docherty]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Don’t. We want an orderly debate in which everybody will have their time to speak, so what we will do is conduct it with respect and tolerance.

[David T. C. Davies]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In putting right an obvious injustice to England, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is doing something that will strengthen the Union. That is why it should be supported by all Unionists and why it is opposed by so many Opposition Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Listening to some on the Opposition Benches, it seems that they believe the West Lothian question was a rhetorical one. This proposal is trying to find an answer to it, the genie having been let out of the bottle through the devolution settlements. Will he accept the support and congratulations of my constituents in North Dorset, because he and the Government are trying to find a fair and just way to solve a problem that has been ignored for far too long and is clearly and palpably unfair?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I suggest that that intervention is far too long?

[Chris Grayling]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the support he gives to the measures. I think they are measured and reasonable. If we are moving towards greater devolution across the United Kingdom, I simply do not accept that it is sensible or reasonable to say to the English, “You have no part in that.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I am a proud Unionist. The voices of proud Unionists on the Opposition Benches say to the Leader of the House that there is a profound risk in his proposals. The risk is, first, making a differential between Members. Further, he tells us that he has looked, with the Clerks, at what might happen and that we can all deal with that after a year. We are arguing for a careful review before this is implemented, because it sounds to me as if, for example, English voters—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Unfortunately, we have to have short interventions. The best thing to do is have one intervention and then come back later to make another intervention.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I missed the important bit!

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

I am delighted to try to assist the Leader of the House in that task. There is a very simple answer, which would take away a lot of the angst. If we want fairness and English votes for English laws, the solution is very simple: bring forward legislation for an English Parliament. That is what we would consider as fair. The point that the right hon. Gentleman has to address is that we were all elected on 7 May with equal rights, so why is that—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Let me help the House by explaining that 23 people wish to speak and the two Front Benchers need to speak, so we must have short interventions.

[Chris Grayling]

On that note, I shall seek to bring my remarks to a conclusion. I have been as generous as I can in giving way.

Let me finish with this thought. The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) talked about equal rights, so let me remind him that in a typical day in this place, most people representing England and Wales are dealing with inquiries from constituents about the health service, education, transport and so forth, while in Scotland all those things are not the responsibility of SNP Members—they are the responsibility of their counterparts in the Scottish Parliament. We already have Members of Parliament with different jobs to do. We are simply ensuring a degree of fairness in this place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think the hon. Lady has got the point.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for accepting my goodwill, at least. We are in a more complex position than we needed to be in because of the way in which the Government have chosen to proceed on this difficult issue. In my view, cross-party consensus leads to more sustainable and long-lasting solutions.

Select Committees

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Hoyle)]

With the permission of the House, the motions on Select Committees will be taken together.

Before I call the Leader of the House to move the first motion, I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment to the second motion, in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). The amendment may be debated along with the first motion, and the hon. Gentleman will be called to move it formally at the end of the debate if he wishes to do so.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Chris Grayling)]

I beg to move,

That with effect until the end of the current Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 be amended by the insertion of the following line at the appropriate point in the table in paragraph (2):

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this we will consider the following:

The motion on changes to Standing Order No. 146—

That the following changes be made to standing orders—

(1) Leave out paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 146 (Select Committee on Public Administration) and insert the following new paragraphs:

“(1) There shall be a select committee, to be called the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, to examine the reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Service Commissioner for England, which are laid before this House, and matters in connection therewith; to consider matters relating to the quality and standards of administration provided by civil service departments, and other matters relating to the civil service; and to consider constitutional affairs.

(1A) The committee shall consist of eleven Members.”;

(2) Change the title of Standing Order No. 146 to “Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee”;

(3) In Standing Order No. 122B, line 9, leave out “Select Committee on Public Administration” and insert “Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee”;

(4) In Standing Order No. 143, line 69, leave out “Select Committee on Public Administration” and insert “Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee”;

(5) In Standing Order No. 152K, lines 10 and 15, leave out “Select Committee on Public Administration” and insert “Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee”.

The motion on the allocation of Chairs—

That, pursuant to Standing Order No 122B (Election of Committee Chairs), the chairs of those select committees subject to the Standing Order be allocated as indicated in the following Table

[Chris Grayling]

Let me begin by congratulating you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your election this afternoon. We look forward to serving under your stewardship.

Let me take the motions in logical order. The first adds a new Committee, the Women and Equalities Committee, to the list of Select Committees appointed to examine Government Departments.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. A great many private conversations are taking place. If those conversations need to take place, could they take place outside the Chamber? I need to hear the Leader of the House.

[Chris Grayling]

The creation of the Women and Equalities Committee has been asked for by Members from all parts of the House, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who has been instrumental in driving that agenda. If this Committee’s formation is agreed to by the House tonight, it will have all the usual powers of a departmental Select Committee, as set out in Standing Orders. I have introduced this motion so that the House can make such a decision; I hope it will choose to do so. The Standing Order makes clear that the Committee will be established until the end of this Parliament; it will then be for the House to decide whether in the next Parliament the Committee becomes a permanent Committee. I imagine that that will be the case.

The next motion changes relevant Standing Orders so that the name of the Select Committee on Public Administration can be changed to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and be given the power to consider all aspects of constitutional affairs. This is a simple consequence of the fact that in this Parliament there is no ministerial position of Deputy Prime Minister. The motion before the House takes us back to the position immediately before the election in 2010.

The final motion paves the way for the election of Select Committee Chairs by secret ballot of the whole House, introduced for the first time in the previous Parliament, by allocating each Chair to a specific party in accordance with the proportions that Mr Speaker has notified the party leaders of, in accordance with Standing Order 122(B). If this motion is agreed to, arrangements for a ballot will be made, under the supervision of Mr Speaker, in accordance with the remaining provisions of the Standing Order. I know that many Members from all parts of the House have put their names forward for election as Select Committee Chairs. I wish them all the very best in their campaigns.

Committee on Standards (Reports)

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Commons Chamber

(3) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 149A, as amended, lay members who were members of the Committee on Standards in the 2010 Parliament shall cease to be lay members at the end of the current Parliament but be eligible for re-appointment in the next Parliament, and paragraph (3) of that Standing Order shall not apply to any such re-appointment.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this we shall consider the following motion, on the code of conduct and guide to the rules relating to the conduct of Members:

That:

(1) this House approves the Third Report from the Committee on Standards, on The Code of Conduct, (HC 772);

(2) with effect from the beginning of the next Parliament, this House approves the revised Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members annexed to that Report;

(3) the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament be amended as follows:

(a) leave out Paragraph 2 and insert

‘The Code applies to Members in all aspects of their public life. It does not seek to regulate what Members do in their purely private and personal lives’.

(b) leave out paragraph 17; and

(4) previous Resolutions of this House in relation to the conduct of Members shall be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members.

Christmas Adjournment

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burns]

I am impressed by the hon. Gentleman’s qualifications, but I will tell him, and he can check the facts later—surprisingly, his own Front-Bench team have never questioned them—that under the Labour Government there were 10 extra miles of electrification in their 13 years. Under this coalition Government there are at present 856 extra miles—not replacing existing electrified line, but over and above, new electrification of our railways. Before Christmas if he has time or in the new year, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt be able to check his facts and write back to me confirming the accuracy of my figures.

I think we have consensus now. On that happy note, I wish all the staff who work so diligently and hard on our behalf throughout the year a very happy Christmas, and Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish you a very happy Christmas.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Thank you.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

It is perfectly open to the President to do this now. There is a window of opportunity that may close in January as a result of the changes in Congress, so now is the time for him to act. A number of MPs from all political parties have signed a plea to urge the Prime Minister to pick up the phone to Washington to ensure that Shaker is returned home to his family by Christmas.

I want to raise two other things. This Christmas will the last Christmas when my constituents and many others in the London borough of Hillingdon will have the opportunity to use the services of Randalls store in Uxbridge, because it is closing. It has served our community over generations and decades. I thank the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall), his predecessors, his family and the staff for the service they have provided. I wish him and all the staff well in the future. The store will be greatly missed as a local community facility.

This morning I visited pupils at Harlington community school, a local secondary school where a group of sixth formers had, of their own volition, collected parcel after parcel of food to be provided to Hillingdon food bank. I wish them a very happy Christmas. I take pride in what they have done and their generosity as young people working hard on behalf of the community. I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all Members and staff a happy Christmas.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

There can be no more appropriate moment to call Sir John Randall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I just say that Members should aim to speak for seven minutes? Otherwise somebody’s time will be cut, which I do not want to happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

As I understand it, the situation will then be monitored to ensure that that happens.

The hon. Member for Southend West also referred to his own personal contribution to the work done by maternity wards, in that he has five children. I congratulate him on that. He mentioned the mental health manifesto. He also talked about the all-party parliamentary hepatology group. He started that point with a reference to the season of good will, then referred to obesity, hepatitis and alcohol misuse, which was a bit of a downer. He was making a serious point, however.

If I were to refer to all the other things that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in the debate, I would not have time to refer to anyone else. However, his most important subject was the one he raised at the end of his speech. It is a concern that he has raised repeatedly, and it relates to his local health service. I am sure that the Department of Health, his clinical commissioning group and the trust in his area will have heard his arguments loud and clear.

The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), who is no longer in his place, referred to the estuary airport. I agree with him that that project was never going to happen, because the airlines would not have wanted to pay for it or to pass on the costs to their passengers. He referred to the important role of London assembly members in holding Transport for London to account, and I would like to congratulate Caroline Pidgeon and Stephen Knight on the role that they play in the assembly in that respect. The hon. Gentleman supported the idea of Transport for London being more open to engaging transport users in the system, and I agree with him on that. He referred to local authority funding cuts, which other Members have also raised; that is clearly an issue. Labour Members have accepted that the deficit needs to be addressed, and that is one way of doing it. If they find it unacceptable, they must come up with a financial alternative, but I am afraid that none has been forthcoming.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) referred to Gatwick, where other aviation proposals have been made, raising concerns about some of the financial aspects and the projection of passenger number increases. If the intention is for an increase from 30 million to 90 million by 2050, clearly there will be a need for significant public transport investment in infrastructure around Gatwick.

The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) touched on the issue of local government and the tough financial settlement. She referred to the NHS pay rise, where people have been given a minimum of a 1% increase across the board, although I agree that that is not the full pay increase that some had been expecting. She referred to the need for more doctors and nurses. I am pleased to say that there are 9,000 more doctors and 3,000 more nurses. Perhaps more helpfully, she referred to John’s Campaign, which is about allowing carers to stay in hospital. I can confirm that, by means of an exchange of texts, the relevant Minister has confirmed that he would be happy to meet her and campaigners to discuss that issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who is not in his place, referred to the A303. Anyone who has gone to that part of the country will welcome the investment being made in that road. He referred to the need to accelerate the implementation of rural broadband, on which, again, we would all agree. He also referred to the Devon Freewheelers, talking about bikers who deliver body parts—he paused at that point and we all started to worry about what this meant, but it turned out to be about transplants. We should certainly support such charities. I believe he was calling for NHS funding, but often charities work because they are charitable enterprises. I am sure, however, that anything the Government can do to support them in terms of publicity and ensuring that they can operate effectively will be done.

The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) referred to hysteroscopy, as she did last year, and it was equally as uncomfortable for us listening to it as it was 12 months ago. I am pleased to hear that the Minister with responsibility for public health did respond to her, but clearly she has identified that there is an ongoing issue and so I will follow that up again and make sure that she gets a further response, which I hope will clarify that things have moved on and what further can be planned. She also raised the issue of pancreatic cancer, the silent cancer. More needs to be done to raise the profile of that, so that we have a better chance of early diagnosis. I commend her for drawing that to the House’s attention.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) rightly drew attention to North Korea and the horrendous situation there. Anyone who is in any doubt about that can still go on to Google Earth to look at the concentration camps in North Korea. I commend to all Members “Escape from Camp 14” on Shin Dong-hyuk. I have read it and it sets out in the bleakest terms possible exactly the conditions political prisoners and others in North Korean camps are kept in.

The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) referred to the estuary airport. [Interruption.] He is not in his place. He then talked about a housing development of 5,000 homes and he did a very effective job of opposing those plans—it was as effective a job as he did when he was supporting them before he defected to the United Kingdom Independence party. It is Christmas—a time for caring, reflection, forgiveness and good will—and I know he is running a fundraising campaign whereby he is seeking £7.30 contributions from each and everyone to support his legal case against the Conservative party. I am not sure how many people will want to contribute to that appeal fund.

We then heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), who will be very relieved to hear that it is perfectly in order for schools within the national curriculum to discuss the 1812 to 1814 war. I will, if he wishes, set out afterwards precisely how that is possible. We have given teachers the flexibility to do that. Clearly I hope that many teachers will have listened to his pleas for them to pick up this issue and will respond accordingly.

We had a contribution from the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) on the subject of the base in Bahrain. The Leader of the House responded to that point in some detail this morning, drawing on the knowledge he had gained from his previous role as Foreign Secretary. The hon. Gentleman and I have been lobbied by representatives about the human rights situation in Bahrain. Although the Foreign and Commonwealth Office thinks that some positive steps have been taken, it is clear that there are still areas that need to be addressed. In particular, more needs to be done on the accountability of police personnel and the investigation and sentencing of those alleged to have committed torture and mistreatment. There is a recognition that action needs to be taken.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to local authority funding and the private rented sector, which he does on a regular basis, and I commend him for that. He will be as disappointed as I was—indeed as almost everyone was in this House—that the Bill about revenge evictions put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) was talked out.

We then had a positive and informed contribution on the subject of trains and the reliability problems that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) faces on his service. I can commiserate with him on that matter, as the works at London Bridge at the moment are causing chaos on the Southern and Thameslink services, which frustrates me virtually every day of the week when I attempt to get into this place. I will refer to the Secretary of State for Transport his plea for faster electrification of the Felixstowe and Nuneaton line.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on again raising the case of Shaker Aamer, to which the Government accord high priority. He again called on the Prime Minister to raise the matter with President Obama, and I will ensure that that request is conveyed to him. The Prime Minister last raised the matter in June 2013, but there have been interventions since from the Deputy Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. The hon. Gentlemen is right to continue to raise that particular issue.

I regret the forthcoming departure of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall). Having been on a Select Committee tour to Brazil and Venezuela with him, I can say that he is excessively good company and one of the friendliest, most considerate and courteous Members of this House. We will all miss him, as will the customers of his store. He also thanked the Whips Office, which is probably rather rare in this place.

The hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) talked about sight loss. I commend him for the work he is doing on that issue and draw to his attention the importance of ensuring that sight tests are available for people with learning disabilities, which is an issue I have taken up recently given the high level of prevalence of sight impairment within that group. He raised the matter of sight loss advisers and the need for expanding eye clinic liaison officers, and I will draw these point to the attention of the Department of Health.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) raised a number of issues, including that of his constituent, Lauren, and the runaround that he is getting from NHS England in relation to the services or support that will help her to deal with gastroparesis. As he has often done in this place, he referred to a number of issues to do with care, on which he is a real champion, and he referred to the two reports on residential care and home care. He asked me to pursue with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs the subject of agencies that pay less than the minimum wage to carers, and of course I will do that. He talked about the need to ensure that there was parity of esteem in relation to the millennium development goals and the role that the Department for International Development is playing. Finally, he referred to the short time frame for the renal consultation. As I understand it, that is necessary because the changes need to be implemented by 1 April next year, and it will be difficult to achieve that if the consultation period is extended. I am sure that he will follow that up with the Department of Health if he does not feel that that is satisfactory.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove referred to the A555, for which he has consistently campaigned along with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) since 1997. Phase 2 might be his legacy, but that might be in the next Parliament. I am sure that he will be able to get his name attached to it in some shape or form and I hope that the money for that phase will be forthcoming. He raised the issue of fires in houses, which he could take up with the all-party parliamentary group, but I will ensure that it is drawn to the attention of the appropriate Minister as there is clearly a potentially significant issue that could affect not only that estate but many others around the country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) is a regular attendee at these events and I welcome him again to this one. He referred to a number of significant events in his constituency and the need for a rapprochement between the electorate and Westminster. He also referred to English votes for English laws, which we need to move on quickly. However, I do not think we can rush it and there are issues that need to be considered alongside it, including the devolution of more power below the level of England and, in my view, the need for a constitutional convention.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) raised a number of local issues and I commend him for his work in campaigning to improve the NHS in his area as well as the campaign he is running to ensure that his A and E is returned to a 24-hour-a-day service. I wish him well. He also referred to libraries, and I think we collectively support the network of libraries in our constituencies and will want to see them strengthened by the provision of the sorts of things recommended in the recent report, such as wi-fi provision, innovation and ensuring that they can operate as a network. My hon. Friend referred to other issues that affect many Members of Parliament, including nuisance telephone calls and copycat websites, which I think we can all do a lot to campaign against through our use of our own social media, for instance. He also referred to local councillors and I want to take this opportunity to commend them for their work.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) referred to the Recall of MPs Bill. I do not know whether he noticed that Lord Campbell-Savours was rather lacking in festive spirit when he described the changes that the hon. Gentleman had implemented as ones made by boys in short trousers in the shadow Cabinet. Perhaps he can take that up with Dale later.

The hon. Gentleman asked for a debate on foreign policy, which I shall certainly pass on to the Leader of the House, although I think that contrary to the impression that was given we are not a zombie Parliament. We have important business to transact and that might be a matter for the Backbench Business Committee. I thank the hon. Gentleman for thanking members of staff individually, some specifically for what they have achieved in the House.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you and wish you a merry Christmas. I wish all Members in the Chamber, the Clerks, the officers of the Serjeant at Arms, the staff who care for us here and our own staff a merry Christmas.

Let me finish where we started the debate with the final words of the hon. Member for Southend West. I thank the emergency services that will be looking after us over the Christmas period. I thank the ambulance service in St Helier, the fire service in Wallington, the police in Sutton and the NHS staff in all our hospitals, particularly at St Helier hospital. I know that they will be working over the Christmas break to keep us all healthy and safe, so merry Christmas to them all.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

May I also take this opportunity to say thank you to all right hon. and hon. Members? I wish them all the best for Christmas and a peaceful new year, as well as all the visitors of this House and the staff who keep this place going.

Devolution and the Union

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacNeil]

I am really sorry, but I have been too generous in giving way. Members overlook that point when they talk about the Barnett formula, and the hon. Gentleman may want to come back to it in his summing up.

Like it or not—the hon. Members for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) and for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) did not like it—the big jumping off point is now the vow. Whether Tory or Labour Back Benchers like it or not, that is the truth of the matter. The vow must be seen in the context of what was happening at the time it was made. On 10 September, the Prime Minister said:

“If Scotland says it does want to stay inside the United Kingdom, then all options of devolution are there, and all are possible.”

The right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), the former Prime Minister—Gordon Brown, for those at home watching who might not be absolutely certain who I mean—said:

“The purpose of the Scottish Parliament should be to use the maximum devolution possible”.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We do not usually use a Member’s name, certainly when he is not informed of any discussion that may take place. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not have done that on purpose.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am always delighted to follow your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. If they want to strike it from the record they can. I was trying to make a wider communication point, but I understand and respect what you are saying.

The vow was surrounded by those remarks and the vow ended the option of the status quo; it moved the argument on. The muddle, of course, is what is meant by the vow. In this Chamber, I asked the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath whether, when he signed up to the vow, he knew what he was signing up to. My suspicion, after the Downing street EVEL declaration on the morning after the referendum, is that he was duped. He will know whether he was or not.

I am not sure what the three amigos meant by the vow when they signed up to it on the front page of the Daily Record. The “three amigos” is the collective name in Scotland for the leaders of the Labour, Liberal and Conservative parties—they are seen as much of a muchness. [Interruption.] There they go—the cackling starts again. I suspect that before the referendum the vow meant anything at all to keep Scotland within the Union. After 18 September, they meant it to mean as little as it possibly could.

On the Smith commission, we know what the Scottish people want: they want Scotland’s Parliament to control many areas of policy. Polls show that they not only support the Scottish National party; they support income tax, corporate tax, welfare and benefits, and pensions being dealt with in the Scottish Parliament. If the Smith commission fails the people’s hopes, the polls show that people well understand who the champions of Scotland are and who will put Scotland first. That is why the SNP has between 45% and 59% support in the polls. The complexion of this Parliament will change next May as a result. There are many trigger points that could cause a new, second independence referendum in Scotland. One is an exit from the EU. Another—the most likely—is the demand of the Scottish people for power to go to their Parliament to change their lives, their communities, their families and their neighbourhoods.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

I will not give way because I want other Members to speak and time is ticking on.

A constitutional convention would deal with all these issues, alongside devolving £30 billion to the English regions, reforming the House of Lords and turning it into a regional senate, and further devolution for Wales.

These are important debates. We should have more Government time in which to explore these issues properly, but it is clear that the devolution vow and promise made to Scotland will be carried through—separately from all these other issues about English votes and devolution elsewhere in the United Kingdom. This is a view for the whole of the UK and we should do it on that—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn]

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Members should address the Chair. The last two speakers have felt the need to face in the opposite direction rather than facing the Chair. I think that the hon. Gentleman wishes to give way to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil). I hope that Members will address each other through the Chair from now on.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) is making a thoughtful speech. Does he think that the Republic of Ireland would have had the same success without the powers that it now has under independence, or what we might call total devolution? Does he think that those powers have contributed greatly to what Ireland has now?

[Paul Flynn]

I shall tread carefully here. I do not want to get involved in the Scottish situation, on which we remained silent throughout the referendum. Members of my family were in the Irish Anti-Partition League and in Sinn Fein in the 1920s. All those divisions were there, although of course we hope that they will come to an end. That has certainly been part of the history of these islands, and we should rejoice at what has in many ways been a happy outcome for Ireland, after the misery and suffering of previous centuries.

We are now in a delicate position, because what happened in Scotland is having repercussions. The vow must be respected. There is no question of turning back on that; if we do, there will be a wave of cynicism from Scotland and elsewhere. No referendum solves everything; it is never a final moment. I recall the 1975 referendum on Europe, which hardly settled things in that regard. The entrenched opinions became more deeply entrenched, and that continues to this day, with people still feeling dissatisfied with the result.

In Wales, there was a tiny majority in favour of devolution in 1997, but the next time a vote was held, 65% of the vote was in favour. Huge changes are taking place. When we campaigned for a Welsh Assembly, there were those who said that we were on a slippery slope. Some were against devolution because it represented a slippery slope towards more independence in Wales; others supported it because they were in favour of just such a slippery slope. If there is one certain way of ensuring the break-up of the United Kingdom, it is to arouse the sleeping giant of English nationalism. We have heard about this today, and as the antagonism—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s time is up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I just say that the time limit is going to have to be four minutes now, because of the interventions?

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

I rise to welcome this debate—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I just help Members? I do not reduce the time limit deliberately—I do that because Members keep intervening. If Members want to get in, the only way I can accommodate that is by reducing the limit. So it is no use people tutting at me, as I am trying to help everybody who wants to enter into the debate.

[Mr McKenzie]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to welcome this debate on devolution and the Union, which comes so shortly after that momentous decision in September by the Scottish people, when they voted overwhelmingly to stay part of the United Kingdom and the Union. We should all accept and recognise that democratic decision and the will of the Scottish people. I spent many months on the campaign trail in my constituency, securing a no vote in Inverclyde, which I was glad to see. However, I was not prepared to rejoice in winning that no vote, because I saw the division that had been created in communities across Scotland, even in families, by the referendum. The Labour party has always led on devolution to Scotland and we engage with the Smith commission in a spirit of openness and partnership, and we hope other political parties will do likewise.

More powers for Scotland are guaranteed, regardless of what we hear from others. We guaranteed this during the referendum campaign, and we will also deliver more powers on the timetable we promised. We want the Smith commission to be led by the result of the referendum. The conclusion should reflect the fact that people want a strong Scottish Parliament inside a strong UK, with the continuation of pooling and sharing of resources across the UK.

I want devolution to be more than that, however—I want it to continue and cascade downwards to local government. On the east coast we see the centralising, controlling SNP in power in Scotland, and therefore on the west coast we need that devolution to come our way. We do not wish to see powers simply put on the train from London to Edinburgh and remain there. We need those powers to be devolved to Scottish local government as well. We have seen that while the east coast is given huge amounts of infrastructure and support, the west coast has not been so fortunate. We feel very removed from Holyrood. We should be devolving more powers to local government, which knows the local communities and what they need and should not be overruled from Edinburgh on what it is trying to deliver.

In last year’s autumn statement we saw many hundreds of millions of pounds coming to Scotland to reside in the coffers of the Scottish Government, but we have seen very little of that cascade down into local government, with my local authority in Inverclyde receiving a pittance of 0.1% of that funding to do anything to enhance communities. We needed, and wished for, our fair share to make a real difference. That is what we in Inverclyde see as the essence of devolution—to see that devolution end up on the doorstep, with people feeling that real power can be taken in their communities, and seeing once again, as we saw in the referendum, that when they cast their vote, it can make a real difference.

We have heard much from the SNP Government in Edinburgh about the fact that they would devolve powers, and it is strange that they attack the vow, yet they are unwilling to make a vow of their own—to list the powers they would cascade to local government and make a real difference. Instead everything they accuse this Parliament of, they replicate: they guard and keep the powers to themselves. We need devolution to come down the line to local government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Eagle]

We are already doing some pre-work, before the election. We want this to happen very quickly after the election, and want to be ready to come forward with some views after proper conversations with people from across the entire country. We are looking at models such as the Scottish constitutional convention and the Irish constitutional convention, which happened after the crash. There are good models out there that we can use to bring about a process that would give a new settlement the legitimacy it deserves. [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The shadow Deputy Leader of the House needs to stop enticing colleagues to speak. I want to hear the shadow Leader of the House.

[Ms Eagle]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) is naughty like that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I will let you deal with him.

[Ms Eagle]

I will get on with that later, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Our amendment, had it been selected, would have brought about proposals that would meet the scale of the challenge and unite the country through conversation and consensus; that is exactly what we would seek to do.

When the Prime Minister appeared on his front step just hours after the result of the Scottish referendum was announced, his intention was not to bring our country together, but to try to find a new way to divide us with his partisan suggestion of English votes for English laws, which he appears to want to apply to Finance Bills. Instead of behaving like a Prime Minister, he behaved like a man concerned only with his own narrow party interest who was running scared of the UK Independence party.

The need for a distinct voice and identity for the English is something that I understand, but the issue is much wider than who votes on what, and in which way, in this House; today’s debate has demonstrated that. Look at what this Government have done to make worse the problem of unfair access to resources. They have instigated huge cuts to local authorities in England, and they have hit the poorest areas hardest.

The effect of the Barnett formula distribution pales into insignificance compared with what has been happening in local government allocations. My local authority will have suffered a 57% cut to its 2009-10 budget by the end of this Parliament, which is a loss of over £700 per household. While the social safety net is torn away in the Wirral, Surrey Heath has received an increase of £25 per household. With their modest announcements on some cities, the Government have come very late to any thought of meaningful devolution of power to the English regions. Indeed, they have centralised power quite significantly, beginning with the complete dismantling of the regional development agencies.

Meanwhile, Labour Members have been proposing the biggest devolution of power ever to the English regions. After the McKay commission reported on the West Lothian question, the Government’s own press release said:

“The Government is giving serious consideration to this report. Given the significance of the recommendations for both England and the UK as a whole, it is right to take the time required for a thorough and rigorous assessment.”

That welcome and sensible approach was thrown over on the morning after the referendum. I hope that we can see it reasserted in the months ahead.

Labour has a proud record of constitutional reform achieved by trying to find cross-party consensus. We devolved power to cities as well as nations. We passed the Freedom of Information Act and the Human Rights Act. We began the process of Lords reforms, and I hope that we will be able to finish it by establishing a senate of the nations and regions. We understand that there is more to the debate than just English votes for English MPs; it is about how our democracy works and how we can rebuild trust in it.

I urge Members to vote against the motion because of its reference to a review of the Barnett formula, which would go against the promises that were given to the Scottish people before the referendum. There is an exciting possibility of progressive change ahead and the prospect of a radical improvement in the way the UK is governed, which would take power and accountability closer to the people and renew our democracy. I believe that we should seize it.

Devolution (Scotland Referendum)

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie]

I should be delighted.

The hon. Gentleman is making a number of very interesting points while trying to rewrite the outcome of the referendum. May I ask him to confirm that the first page of the Scottish Government’s submission to the Smith commission makes plain our understanding that the commission will simply be about devolution and will not lead to independence, and that we absolutely understand and respect the outcome of the referendum? Will he now work with us to maximise the powers—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We have a lot to get into the debate, and Members rightly wish to contribute. We cannot allow speeches to be made in the form of interventions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Let me just say that after the next speech I will have to reduce the time limit to three minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) has only just walked into the Chamber, and I do not want to embarrass him.

[Mr Redwood]

I say that we need justice for England, and that we need to embark on this course now. We could begin today if Scottish Members of Parliament, like those in the SNP, would simply say that they would no longer vote on English-only matters. We could do it quite simply by amending the Standing Orders of the House, which I strongly recommend.

I hope that other parties will come with us. I am offering something that is extraordinarily popular in England. All the parties are struggling a bit to be popular enough to win the general election, and one would have thought that they would want to associate themselves with something as popular as this. I cannot remember when I last supported something this popular, and I do not go out of my way to support unpopular causes. Yet I find MPs from other parties queuing up to disagree with the English people, to deny the English people justice, to say that an English person’s vote should not count as much as a Scottish person’s vote, and to say that, yes, they want to see an income tax rate set for England by people who will not be paying the tax, and who do not represent those who do pay it.

I say, “Justice for England! Justice now! English votes for English issues!”

Select Committee on Governance of the House

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has put this motion before the House today. Is he aware that I understand from an answer to me that the panel was completely unaware that Carol Mills was undergoing investigation—two investigations, actually—by the Australian Senate before it made its decision? Moreover, Saxton Bampfylde wished to inform the panel that that was the case, and the panel was advised not to take evidence from it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There are lots of speakers on the list, including the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who I want to get in early on, so we must have very short interventions.

[Jesse Norman]

I was not aware of that, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it now.

The Speaker has made clear his personal support for a split between the roles of Clerk and chief executive. In a statement to the House last week he called for the issues of a pre-appointment hearing and a possible split in roles to be examined and the views of Members to be solicited in detail. This debate, and the governance Select Committee and procedure for wider consultation proposed in the motion, are the House’s response to that request by the Speaker.

The proper governance of this House is a matter of enormous public importance. Indeed, it is properly considered a constitutional matter, first, because the British constitution—at least such as it is for the next eight days—relies on the effective functioning of Parliament and, secondly, because this Parliament, and especially the Clerk, act as the final word on procedural matters for a host of further Parliaments across the Commonwealth.

Contrary to popular belief, parliamentary procedure—the rules of the game—is not some pettifogging accretion, or irrelevant decoration, to the business of democratic government; it is the essence of democratic government. This country is governed by laws, laws are made in Parliament, and that Parliament is run according to rules and procedure; without procedure, there could be no government. Indeed, even the role of chief executive has a constitutional dimension, because the capacity of Members to hold the Government to account rests in part on how well they are enabled to function by the House service.

Because of the importance of this subject, the House has regularly sought to assess the quality of its own governance. Three times in the last 30 years it has invited outside experts to lead a process of review: Sir Robin Ibbs, Mr Michael Braithwaite and Sir Kevin Tebbit. No institution is perfect, of course, and some of their criticisms have been stringent. Even so, those reviews have identified a fairly clear, if inconsistent, path of reform and modernisation.

The first such review, the Ibbs review of 1990, painted a pretty damaging picture of administrative incompetence:

“Good financial management systems and the associated control mechanisms did not exist. There was no effective planning, measurement of achievement against requirement, nor assessment of value for money.”

The Braithwaite review in 1999 acknowledged the constitutional significance of a properly resourced and effective Parliament. It recognised that

“the Ibbs team found a situation which was profoundly unsatisfactory in terms of responsibilities, structure and operation.”

It acknowledged that significant progress had been made, but at the same time it made clear that

“full implementation of Ibbs was slow and in some areas did not occur.”

The Tebbit review in 2007 was rather more encouraging. It concluded that:

“The present system is certainly not broken”

and that it was “well regarded overall”. It mentioned

“effective management of delivery and services”,

adding it was

“highly effective in core scrutiny and legislative functions”,

but it made a crucial exception for the management of the estate and works. It recommended steps to improve integration, transparency and clarity of management goals, and to create a stronger finance function and greater professional management across the board.

To those, we may perhaps add one last data point. In the recent debate on the retirement of the last Clerk, Sir Robert Rogers, the House was united not only in acclaiming the merits of Sir Robert himself as Clerk, but in acknowledging the progress the House had made in key areas of management and modernisation. Those include implementing a substantial savings programme without loss of service, the introduction of new IT and a drive towards paperless working, far greater outreach and significant improvement on issues of diversity and equality, as well as a new apprenticeships programme.

The Chair of the Finance and Services Committee, the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), aptly summarised the situation by recognising

“a transformation in the management of the House Service, which has moved from what could be described as an era of gifted amateurism to one of thoroughly competent professionalism.”—[Official Report, 16 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 901.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I must say that we now have a four-minute limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I want to avoid personalities, and I certainly deplore whispering campaigns. I consider this to be an interesting debate and I am glad that it is being held. However, if we had gone through the usual procedures for appointing a new Clerk as a result of a vacancy, it is most unlikely that we would be having this debate today. For some time, I have considered it rather odd that the House itself has had no say whatever in the appointment of the Clerk. This is no reflection at all on the previous Clerk or his predecessors, but none of those appointments was ever brought before, say, the Public Administration Committee. It has always simply been a question of the Speaker of the day announcing that so-and-so has been appointed, and that has been the end of the matter. What we are doing now, in having the matter thoroughly looked into by a Select Committee, is the right approach in every possible way. I have thought on previous occasions that I should express some concern about the way in which appointments were made for the most senior job—the most senior officer—in the House, but I thought, on reflection, that no purpose would be served by doing so. After all, first and foremost, we are here for political purposes.

I find it difficult to understand why the position of the Clerk—as the hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) has just emphasised, we are talking about the No.1 authority on procedural rules and on “Erskine May, and the very person who would give advice to the Speaker and to the House—should be combined with that of chief executive, which is entirely a managerial position. It may well be that some very talented people in this world could combine the two position adequately, but I very much doubt it—again, that is no reflection on previous Clerks.

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), I do not believe this place has been well managed—to a large extent, the opposite is the case. Indeed, in previous debates on the functioning of the House, I have made sharp criticism of the way in which certain functions and aspects of this place have been managed—or mismanaged, as the case may be. We have to recognise that, as has been said in this debate, there are two separate positions here. It may well be that the Select Committee will not come to that conclusion and will recommend otherwise, but I hope that it will recognise that we have two different and important functions here, those of Clerk of the House and chief executive, and not that of a chief operating officer, as that is a bit of a cop out, to say the least.

We need to recognise that, leaving aside day-to-day management, we are faced with a challenge: the need to rebuild this House of Commons. It is in such a state of decay that it is essential that we accept the challenge, and the work should begin no later than 2020. That challenge, given a recognition that we certainly will not be able to carry out that work while the House is sitting or during the long recess, as the case may be, provides all the more reason for effective managerial authority, which I just cannot recognise as being the work of the Clerk of the House. I therefore hope—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I call Michael Fabricant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I support the proposed Select Committee and its eminent Chair-elect, but I want to be reassured that it is not an effort to undermine an elected and reforming Speaker of the House. Mr Speaker has given us many more opportunities than we had in the past to hold the Government to account.

I should also like to be assured that the Committee will go wider than the appointment of a new Clerk and splitting responsibilities with a new chief executive. Ideally, the Committee would at the very least recommend that the entire management structure of the House be looked at in this modern age. It would also ideally recommend any changes necessary to improve support to elected Members. To my mind, that should include organisation of the management and the Clerks department; recruitment; what opportunities and prospects are on offer; how promotions are decided; and the perks and privileges. Ideally, it would also include how we ensure that staffing and resources are responsive to the needs of Select Committees, so that we can exercise our role more effectively.

On Monday, the head of the TUC, Frances O’Grady, its first woman general secretary, talked about a “Downton Abbey” recovery. To many hon. Members, the House often has an archaic “Upstairs, Downstairs” feel. Perks and privileges for the few abound, but plenty of glass ceilings are apparent from lower down the ladder.

The debate was prompted by the appointment of a new Clerk. One notable aspect of the process was that outside applications were invited from a range of candidates. That seems to have prompted a bitter reaction from some quarters whose interests seem vested in purely preserving the past.

In this day and age, it would seem strange to the outside world if this were all simply to boil down to defending Buggins’s turn. There is no necessary connection, as we have heard, between an encyclopaedic knowledge of “Erskine May” built up over decades and the ability to run a multi-million pound organisation such as Parliament in the 21st century.

As well as the best management and governance, in the modern age the House is urgently crying out for the updating of parliamentary privilege, to which I hope the Select Committee could also give a push. A privileges Bill has long been mooted, but there has been precious little sign of one from the Government or from within the House. Two years ago, for example, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport produced a damning report naming people who had misled the House over phone hacking and a cover-up at News International. Those conclusions, under our old procedures, now lie parked with the Standards and Privileges Committees for further action. When we came to draft the report and pressed for clarity about privilege and the sanctions available, vagueness was the guidance of the day for fear of exposing the fact that the emperor, namely Parliament, had no clothes—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think we need to get back on to the subject in hand.

[Paul Farrelly]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am coming back to the issue of the management and governance of the House, but I wanted to speak frankly about how that difficult report involved trial and tribulation in how Committees were supported by the management of the House.

I want to conclude with a few words about one disturbing aspect of the appointment process, namely that attacks on Mr Speaker, the appointment panel and one of the outside candidates, Carol Mills from Australia, began before the appointment was made on 30 July. They began 10 days before, during the interviews, when leaked attacks from unnamed sources appeared in one Sunday tabloid, and they have carried on since. I will not dignify the organ my naming it, but it was hardly the first time it has attacked Mr Speaker, nor will it be the last. I have particular sympathy in that regard because two years ago I was on the end of such leaks, and not from elected Members, to the same newspaper.

What has happened this summer has been a disgrace, with the same newspaper, the same reporters, a similar modus operandi and similar sources, it seems to me. As we consider the motion, I want to be assured that such bad behaviour will not be tolerated or rewarded in the future.