Standards

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Thursday 31st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I, and I hope the whole House, wish that the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) recovers and that his health is restored.

I strongly support the motion, which says that the House

“approves the First Report of the Committee on Standards …HC 93”,

and that we endorse

“the recommendations in paragraphs 99 and 101”

and the suspension from the service of the House for a period of six months.

I served with others on the Standards Committee in the early 2000s, when Elizabeth Filkin was the Standards Commissioner. She was badly treated by the House and treated even worse by the right hon. Member for Leicester East. Paragraph 97 of the report states:

“Mr Vaz has previously been found to have been in serious breach of the Code and in contempt of the House. In 2002 the Standards and Privileges Committee found he had recklessly made a damaging and untrue allegation against another person, which could have intimidated them, and had wrongly interfered with the House’s investigative process: in particular that ‘having set the Commissioner on a false line of inquiry Mr Vaz then accused her of interfering in a criminal investigation and threatened to report her to the Speaker’”.

It goes on to other points that he made.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) rightly read out some of the words on the right hon. Gentleman’s website, which are totally contradicted by the report that I have in my hand. I think that someone who has done that after the report has come out should have the suspension doubled to a year.

I say this: this is not a party point, but the right hon. Gentleman should not be nominated. If he is nominated, he should not be elected, and if he is elected, he should be suspended for a very long time.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon Gentleman for his contribution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has expressed himself with his customary courtesy. I think that the answer to that question—I am looking plaintively in the direction of the Chair of the Standards Committee, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green)—is that that is a matter for the Committee. It would be quite wrong for me to seek to influence it any way, and I do not do so. It is absolutely not a matter for me or, indeed, for any occupant of the Chair. It is, I think, a matter for the Committee. I say this by way of explanation and attempted intelligibility to observers: the Committee has authority in this matter and, if you will, ownership of it. Committees are in charge of their own inquiries. It would be a matter for the Committee, but obviously not in this Parliament. That is the best way to leave it.

Obviously, although I heard the recital—I do not use the term “recital” in any disobliging sense—by the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) of what was on the website, it is not something that I have studied, and I hope people will understand that it is not something that the Speaker would have studied. There is no reason to expect that I would have done so. It is a matter for the Committee. It has a range of sanctions available to it, and it makes the judgment as to which sanction or set of sanctions it wishes to recommend to the House. If, for whatever reason, the Committee does not recommend an apology, an apology is not required. If, on the other hand, it does, it might be. A very different matter was recently brought to my attention in relation to a non-Member and the allocation of a pass, and I had to point out that there was not an unpurged contempt. A person had behaved badly and been criticised, but he had not failed to apologise when instructed to do so. For whatever reason, he had not been instructed to do so and was therefore not required to do so. My understanding is that that is the case in this instance. Whether that is the right thing or the wrong thing is a matter for the Committee.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On that point, we notice that the motion is in the name of the Leader of the House, so were the person concerned to be re-elected, we would not have to wait for the re-establishment of the Standards Committee. The Leader of the House could re-present a motion in the same terms, and if, subsequently, the Standards Committee wanted to take further action, that would then follow.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order.

Tributes to the Speaker’s Chaplain

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Thursday 31st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

As parliamentary warden of St Margaret’s church, Parliament Square, may I join in supporting the motion of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House? The only thing that surprised me about his speech is that he did not mention—although the motion does—that Rose Hudson-Wilkin will be the Bishop in Canterbury, where my right hon. Friend married his wife, with a number of people presiding, and he managed to incorporate in this currently Anglican cathedral a Roman Catholic mass. I think that it is almost coming home time for him.

May I say how much I welcomed the words of the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz)? Watching Rose Hudson-Wilkin work with John Hall as Dean of Westminster, with Andrew Tremlett and with Jane Sinclair, who have been the rectors at St Margaret’s, and in her sharing of the monthly parliamentary communion and the breakfast in your house, Mr Speaker, we have seen closely in private what she is also well known for in public. I add that it was a delight to meet her grandchildren at the reception in your house, Mr Speaker; they are a tribute to the modern generation in this country, and if some of them were to come here not perhaps as Speaker’s chaplain but as Members of Parliament it would be a delight, especially if I could remain here to welcome and join them.

I want to end with some words that will be familiar to Rose Hudson-Wilkin:

“Our vision is for everyone, everywhere to encounter God’s love and be empowered to transform their communities through faith shared in words and action.”

She says she comes from Montego Bay; I say she comes from the Church Army, and those words are the Church Army dedication. I thank her for her dedication to us.

[Mr Speaker]

Bless you; I am deeply obliged to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said.

Brexit Negotiations

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Thursday 3rd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

In thanking the Prime Minister and colleagues, I would just say that there are issues of substance and issues of tone. The substance of policy is absolutely not a matter for the Chair, but I would like to say that the tone of yesterday’s very important debate on the Government’s Domestic Abuse Bill, and the tone of the exchanges today, represent a huge improvement on last week. I thank the Prime Minister and colleagues.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

If the hon. Gentleman really thinks it is necessary, we will take it.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

It may not be necessary, but it is a courtesy to say that we appreciate that your calm, quiet voice was just as effective as other voices that you have, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Why did I not realise in advance how generous the hon. Gentleman was going to be? I thank him for what he said; it is very much appreciated.

Speaker's Statement

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Thursday 26th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before we get under way with today’s business, including a number of urgent questions and statements, I just want to say a few words to the House. I think there is a widespread sense across the House and beyond that, yesterday, the House did itself no credit. There was an atmosphere in the Chamber worse than any I have known in my 22 years in the House. On both sides, passions were inflamed, angry words were uttered and the culture was toxic. This country faces the most challenging political issue that we have grappled with in decades. There are genuine, heartfelt, sincerely subscribed to differences of opinion about that matter. Members must be free to express themselves about it and to display, as they unfailingly do, the courage of their convictions. It ought, however, to be possible to disagree agreeably, and I can see Members on both sides of the House who are fine exponents of that principle and tradition. Yesterday, that was not the majority strain, I am sorry to say.

I have, overnight, received an approach from two very senior Members on either side of the House pressing the case for a formal consideration of our political culture going forward. Manifestly, any such formal structure—any such conference, deliberation—would not take place under my aegis. Like everybody else here, I just want what is best for the House. Pending consideration of that approach and the argument for having a sober consideration of the issue of political culture and conduct over an ongoing period, I can advise the House that there will be an urgent question later today on the matter to which I have just referred, and that will be an opportunity for colleagues to say what they think.

This is something of concern across the House. It is not a party political matter and, certainly as far as I am concerned, it should not be in any way, at any time, to any degree a matter for partisan point scoring. It is about something bigger than an individual, an individual party or an individual political or ideological viewpoint. Let us treat of it on that basis. In the meantime, may I just ask colleagues—that is all I am doing and all I can do as your representative in the Chair—please to lower the decibel level and to try to treat each other as opponents, not as enemies?

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I genuinely am not convinced, but I will take one point of order if the hon. Gentleman insists. I am not sure how helpful it will be, but let us see.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Would it be helpful for the House to know the subjects of the other urgent questions and statements, please?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The first urgent question is from the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) on the subject of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. The issues will play out, but it is about compliance with the Act. It is a perfectly reasonable question from the hon. Gentleman. The second is from the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) on the situation in Hong Kong. The third is from Mr Chris Law on the subject of arms export licences to Saudi Arabia. The fourth urgent question, to which I perhaps slightly elliptically referred, is from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) on the matter of the toxicity of our political culture and the need to take appropriate steps to minimise that toxicity and conduce to a better atmosphere.

The statement from the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is on the subject of international climate action at the United Nations climate action summit. There will also be a further business statement, of which we had notice last night, from the Leader of the House. I hope that has satisfied the legitimate inquisitorial appetite of the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley).

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Tuesday 9th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I am interested by the insights into the Bottomley household. The fact that our current divorce laws introduce conflict at the point of divorce can make the break-up of relationships more confrontational than it needs to be in what are already difficult circumstances.

[Mr Speaker]

I believe that the hon. Gentleman has been married for 52 years.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

In sickness and in health.

[Mr Speaker]

I believe that to be so. [Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Thursday 4th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) is wearing an admirably bookish tie—presumably a commentary on his learning and scholarship.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

It is ambition, Mr Speaker.

Fantasists wrongly and unsuccessfully twice accused me of serious sexual offences.

When my hon. and learned Friend attends her inter-departmental group, will she please make sure that each person reads the book “Behind the Blue Line” by Sergeant Gurpal Virdi? It is a deeply shocking account of how one of Britain’s largest institutions brought the apparatus of the state to bear on a campaign to destroy the life of one of its own finest officers.

I would welcome the chance to meet my hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney General, or both, preferably with the Home Secretary there as well, to decide on an investigation into how the CPS and the police did such shocking things.

Points of Order

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Monday 24th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have certainly received no indication of any intention on the part of a Government Minister to make an oral statement in this Chamber. However, the consequence of the hon. Lady raising this point of order is that the Treasury Bench has been alerted to her concern. I would very much hope, in the spirit of courtesy, that the Government would give her advance notice of their intention to make such a statement. I hope that that is helpful.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may have been as surprised as I was to read in The Times today that the Government have paid £118,000 to a company called Big Ideas to get lots of apparent objections to the objections to the Victoria Tower Gardens being used for a national holocaust memorial and learning centre. Until the close of objections to Westminster City Council, the majority were against the proposal. Now that Big Ideas has been there, the numbers have gone up massively, apparently mostly in favour.

Will the Government please explain who made the decision to use public money to influence the apparent responses to a consultation on a planning application that the Government themselves have made? This is the first time I have ever heard of this happening. It deserves an explanation and perhaps the Minister can explain now.

[Mr Speaker]

The matter is certainly of compelling interest to the right hon. Gentleman—if he has been admitted to the Privy Council. If he has not, it can only be a matter of time. In that case, it is a matter not of compelling interest to the right hon. Gentleman, but of compelling interest to the hon. Gentleman. It is also of notable interest to a great many other people to boot. However, the attempted point of order—I use that term advisedly, as he will understand—does suffer from the notable disadvantage, which does not put it in a minority category, that it is many things but not a point of order. In other words, it is not a matter for the Chair; it is not for my adjudication.

In so far as the hon. Gentleman is referring to something that seems to resemble an organised campaign, I cannot say that that of itself is a great shock to me. However, his reference to the fact that there is public money involved is of course of great interest and does render the matter worthy of ministerial attention. It is quite open to a Minister now to respond and to seek to assuage the concerns of the hon. Gentleman, but I do not notice a Minister leaping to his feet with alacrity to do so. Indeed, it would be fair to say that the Leader of the House is seated comfortably in his perch on the Treasury Bench. Ah—he evinces a display of interest. Does the Leader of the House wish to comment? He is not obliged to do so, but we are always happy to hear his mellifluous tones.

Free TV Licences: Over-75s

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I do not have an over-75s TV licence because I do not qualify for one, but I will.

My view, as an officer of the all-party group on the BBC and as someone who has been watching the consultation, is that the BBC was required to make a proposal and it is doing so. This is not a still photograph; it is a moving picture. We should be asking in Parliament and in the Government, because there is a great range of views: what do we want to happen?

My view is that we should raise the 75 age threshold by one year every two years, because of longevity, and we ought to add the value of the concession, together with the free bus pass, to the tax allowance for the over-75s, so that those of us who are earning well or have a good pension are contributing, without having them taken away. That would be simple and easy.

[Mr Speaker]

Enjoy the next 49 days—plus the year, of course.

British Steel

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Colleagues, I will shortly come to Members with constituency interests, and indeed to the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), the former Minister, but I would like to begin with a new, young Member who once worked for British Steel. I call Sir Peter Bottomley.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

That was quite some time ago, Mr Speaker, when it was the British Steel Corporation rather than the old Appleby-Frodingham steel plant that we are discussing today.

I put it to my right hon. Friend that we ought to go on following his non-partisan line, but we ought also to remember what happened to steel production and steel employment during the last Government. Will he also tell us what can be done on energy costs, which form a large part of steel production costs?

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this is an industry in which the worldwide steel cycle has a massive impact? The House will be grateful to him for doing all that he can to mitigate its effects on this country.

EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Votes)

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Monday 1st April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you. I am grateful to the hon. Lady.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This point of order may involve you. The motion that had the greatest number of votes was motion (E), on a confirmatory public vote. Although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) pointed out, that was fewer than the number of votes for the Prime Minister’s deal on Friday, may I invite you to get party leaders together to see whether there could be a run-off between those two, with a free vote across the House?

[Mr Speaker]

I always reflect on points that colleagues make to me, but I am not anticipating what might happen in days to come. The hon. Gentleman has made his own point in his own way. I do not mean it in any unkind or discourteous sense, but it is a point I have heard floated in parts of the popular prints in recent days; that does not invest it with the validity that it might otherwise lack.

Business of the House

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Thursday 21st March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Is this a Labour Whip’s handout?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let us grow up. Do grow up, for goodness’ sake. This is not a matter of party political hackery. Let us have some seriousness of purpose and mutual respect. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) is an experienced Member of the House. He has asked an honest question, to which I know the Leader of the House will honestly reply. For goodness’ sake, let us raise the level.

Speaker’s Statement

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I wish to make a statement to the House. There has been much speculation over the past week about the possibility of the Government bringing before the House a motion on Brexit for another so-called meaningful vote under the statutory framework provided in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. On 13 March, however, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) asked on a point of order, at column 394, whether it would be proper for the Government to keep bringing the same deal back to the House ad infinitum. I replied that no ruling was necessary at that stage, but that one might be required at some point in the future. Subsequently Members on both sides of the House, and indeed on both sides of the Brexit argument, have expressed their concerns to me about the House being repeatedly asked to pronounce on the same fundamental proposition.

The 24th edition of “Erskine May” states on page 397:

“A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”

It goes on to state:

“Attempts have been made to evade this rule by raising again, with verbal alterations, the essential portions of motions which have been negatived. Whether the second motion is substantially the same as the first is finally a matter for the judgment of the Chair.”

This convention is very strong and of long standing, dating back to 2 April 1604. Last Thursday, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) quoted examples of occasions when the ruling had been reasserted by four different Speakers of this House, notably in 1864, 1870, 1882, 1891 and 1912. Each time, the Speaker of the day ruled that a motion could not be brought back because it had already been decided in that same Session of Parliament. Indeed, “Erskine May” makes reference to no fewer than 12 such rulings up to the year 1920.

One of the reasons why the rule has lasted so long is that it is a necessary rule to ensure the sensible use of the House’s time and proper respect for the decisions that it takes. Decisions of the House matter. They have weight. In many cases, they have direct effects not only here but on the lives of our constituents. Absence of Speaker intervention since 1920 is attributable not to the discontinuation of the convention but to general compliance with it; thus, as “Erskine May” notes, the Public Bill Office has often disallowed Bills on the ground that a Bill with the same or very similar long title cannot be presented again in the same Session.

So far as our present situation is concerned, let me summarise the chronology of events. The draft EU withdrawal agreement, giving effect to the deal between the Government and the EU, was published on 14 November and the agreement itself, together with the accompanying political declaration on the future relationship, received endorsement from the European Council on 25 November. The first scheduled debate on what I will hereafter refer to as “the deal” was due to take place on 11 December. However, on 10 December the vote was postponed after 164 speeches had already been made over three of the five days allotted for debate. That postponement was caused not by me or by the House, but by the Government. Indeed, I pointed out at the time that that was deeply discourteous to the House and I suggested that the permission of the House for that postponement should be sought. Regrettably, it was not.

Over five weeks later, following a further five-day debate, the first meaningful vote was held on 15 January, which the Government lost by a margin of 230 votes—the largest in parliamentary history. Subsequently, the second meaningful vote was expected to take place in February, but once again there was a postponement. It finally happened only last Tuesday, 12 March. The Government’s motion on the deal was again very heavily defeated.

In my judgment, that second meaningful vote motion did not fall foul of the convention about matters already having been decided during the same Session. This was because it could be credibly argued that it was a different proposition from that already rejected by the House on 15 January. It contained a number of legal changes which the Government considered to be binding and which had been agreed with the European Union after intensive discussions. Moreover, the Government’s second meaningful vote motion was accompanied by the publication of three new documents—two issued jointly with the EU and a unilateral declaration from the UK not objected to by the EU. In procedural terms, it was therefore quite proper that the debate and the second vote took place last week. The Government responded to its defeat, as they had promised to do, by scheduling debates about a no-deal Brexit and an extension of article 50 on 13 and 14 March respectively.

It has been strongly rumoured, although I have not received confirmation of this, that a third, and even possibly a fourth, meaningful vote motion will be attempted. Hence this statement, which is designed to signal what would be orderly and what would not. This is my conclusion: if the Government wish to bring forward a new proposition that is neither the same nor substantially the same as that disposed of by the House on 12 March, that would be entirely in order. What the Government cannot legitimately do is to resubmit to the House the same proposition or substantially the same proposition as that of last week, which was rejected by 149 votes. This ruling should not be regarded as my last word on the subject; it is simply meant to indicate the test which the Government must meet in order for me to rule that a third meaningful vote can legitimately be held in this parliamentary Session.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I make three points following your helpful statement?

First, at the beginning of it, you used “may” and not the word “must”. At the end, you used the word “must” and not the word “may”. Those are the first two points.

The third point is this: when Sir Ian Gilmour put forward a provision in effect for putting carpets and coffee in betting offices, the puritans objected, so the Bill was withdrawn. Shortly afterwards, a Bill on miscellaneous premises and miscellaneous provisions was passed because no one noticed that it was to do with coffee and carpets in betting shops.

Therefore, there are times when the title of a Bill has been changed. Perhaps if the long title of something that the Government proposed was changed, that might be accepted by the Chair, rather than it having to be ruled out.

EU Exit Preparations: Ferry Contracts

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it customary for the Member who is speaking to provoke a Minister into looking at her directly and then to say that he is somehow interrupting her. It seems to me it would be far better if the hon. and learned Lady went on addressing the Chair and left the Minister to listen, like the rest of us.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has his own interpretation of the chronology of events, which those attending to observe our proceedings can make a judgment about for themselves, and that is one point of view. If I may say so, there is another point of view, which is that the hon. and learned Lady was somewhat disquieted, not to say mildly irritated, by the junior Minister’s evident fascination with the contents of his electronic device. It might be thought courteous not to be focusing intently on the said contents when a Member is addressing the House. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not take offence when I say that he is in the end a very loyal sort of person, and it is not terribly surprising that he should spring to the defence of his ministerial colleague and fellow parliamentarian. It was very gracious of him and a nice try.

Teacher Recruitment and Retention Strategy

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Monday 28th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have known the right hon. Gentleman for 33 years and I must say that he has a mildly eccentric approach to these matters. Nobody could accuse the Minister of State of excluding from his answer any matter that might at any stage to any degree be judged to be material—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) has not stood, but I have just been advised that he has been twitching. Let’s hear the fellow.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

As I said in October 1990 when I raised the question of leadership with the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher—especially mentioning Peter Dawson, who had run Eltham Green before becoming general secretary of the Professional Association of Teachers—the culture that good heads can set, followed by other senior teachers, can bring people in not just to teach first but to teach second, bringing the experience of their own careers to expand our schools and academies. They can do a great deal of good for children across the country.

Personal Independence Payments

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

If the hon. Gentleman can assure me that he was here at the start of the exchanges, it would be a great pleasure to hear from him.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I was here 10 minutes before questions finished.

[Mr Speaker]

Excellent. I look forward to hearing from the hon. Gentleman.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

It is good that my right hon. Friend can be answering for two individual claimants and that she has given the background about the increase in disability spending. May I also say, “Thank you,” for saying that we can refer to individual cases? I have a victim of the infected blood scandal who is being asked to attend an assessment, but I do not think that an ordinary PIP assessor will actually understand what that person has been through for the past 20 or 30 years. Some such things need to be dealt with far more sympathetically and appropriately.

EU Referendum: Electoral Law

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you confirm that listening is taking part in a debate? We do not have to speak to learn.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has made his pithy point pithily, and it is on the record. People can listen and be attentive, and I have become accustomed to listening to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) over the years, which I have always found an enjoyable experience.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to cast any aspersions on the hon. Gentleman’s ability to see if he cannot see that these Benches are not empty. If he can see, he can see that they are full, and he should not say what he said.

[Mr Speaker]

The Benches are not empty. The hon. Gentleman has made his point, and I invite the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) to continue his speech.

Business of the House

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Thursday 21st December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

As per usual, there is extensive interest in the business question, but I simply advise the House that we have two statements to follow and that more than 30 people are seeking to contribute to the two debates to take place under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. Therefore, there is a premium on brevity from Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike, now to be inimitably demonstrated by Sir Peter Bottomley.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The House will welcome the statement by DCLG today on the crack- down on unfair leasehold practices. Will it be possible early in the new year for the Government to announce when there will be a Government debate on the timetable, so that we can stamp out the exploitation, crookery and heartlessness of some freeholders, who have been operating untouched in this field for too long?

Business of the House

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Thursday 14th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it might be sensible to have another Grenfell United meeting in, say, six months’ time? We will not forget what we heard this week, but I think that a repeat would be a good idea, so that we can hear more from those who have life after death.

In this season of good will, and especially in view of the Foreign Secretary’s visit to Iran, might it be a good idea—perhaps in the first week after the recess—for the relevant Ministers to look through cases of deportations from this country? They might ask whether it is seriously sensible to try to expel someone who has lived here for much of his life, has lost both his hands and feet after a criminal attack, and yet has still not been given leave to remain in this country, where the attack took place.

Ministers might also review the case of someone who, although he has not lived in Ghana for more than a year since he was four, is up for deportation because he served his sentence in this country as an adult. It seems to me that some of the cases are so absurd that if the Foreign Ministers of the countries involved came here, we ought to pay as much attention to them as we hope Iran will to our Foreign Secretary.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The only words that were missing from that quite lengthy and absolutely fascinating essay were a request for “a statement or a debate”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I hope, Mr Speaker, that I said “in the first week after we come back”, rather than “next week”.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman did refer to the first week back but, if memory serves me correctly, he did not refer to a statement or a debate, which is not beyond his competence. We will leave it there, but let me very gently say to other Members that, although they may wish to imitate the hon. Gentleman in all sorts of ways, they should not seek to imitate him in respect of length today.

Points of Order

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Thursday 9th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

May I very gently suggest, in the hope that such a practice has not been altogether discontinued in modern politics, that two hon. Members, especially when one hon. Member and the other right hon. Member are members of the same party, and obviously joined by an insatiable interest in this important matter, might consider partaking of a cup of tea in the Tea Room with each other in order courteously, and doubtless fully, to discuss it?

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Times have changed. If more than one person is talking to each other in this place, it is a conspiracy.

[Mr Speaker]

Why did I not appreciate that? I should have done and I now do so. We will leave it there for now. I am glad that colleagues are in such a good mood: at least, they are at 11.47 am; we do not know how long it will last.

Points of Order

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Monday 9th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for notice of it. At this stage, in direct response to his inquiry, I am not aware of anything that has happened that is a matter for the Chair. If it transpires that something has happened that is a matter for the Chair, I will of course consider what action to take. The matter of concern is serious—I do not dispute that for one moment—but it is important to be accurate in the use of terms and language. To the best of my knowledge and belief—I do not doubt the good intentions of the right hon. Gentleman—the individual to whom he has indirectly referred has not been an employee of this House. The individual concerned was an employee of a number of institutions and people. My understanding is that she has resigned from one full-time post and from another part-time post. The part-time post, which had caused her to work administratively with a Member of the House, has ended and the pass that was available to her is being returned. I think that is a pretty full answer to the right hon. Gentleman, which it is intended to be, and I hope that it is helpful, but I do not think that it would be helpful further to dwell on the matter now. I thank him for raising the matter, which is obviously of concern to him.

I do not want to invite trouble, but the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who is a very senior Member of the House—I know that he would not take liberties—is looking at me in a state of great perturbation. If he really wants to raise a point of order, I am not going to stop him.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

He does not. What a remarkable display of self-restraint by the hon. Gentleman. It might catch on—you never know. I think that colleagues would probably say to me, “Good luck with that one.”

Junior Doctors: Industrial Action

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Monday 5th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. For clarification, I must emphasise that there is no concept of giving way in respect of a statement. Although this might resemble a debate to those who are attending our proceedings from beyond the confines of the Chamber, it is a statement with a response. There are no interventions.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

She is new to her job.

[Mr Speaker]

We are always grateful to the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) for whatever counsel he might wish to proffer, even if it is done from a sedentary position.

Points of Order

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Wednesday 27th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He is, in a sense, performing a kind of double act today with the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), two seats to his left. What I would say to the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who is a very experienced denizen of the House, having previously served as its Deputy Leader, is twofold. First, as he knows, the scheduling of business is in the hands of the Government, notably in respect of Government business. Although his expectation, as things stand, as to when that matter will next be treated by the House may well be correct, it has not been announced.

Secondly, the scheduling will, in all probability, be announced at business questions tomorrow by the Leader of the House. If it is not, there will be an opportunity for that matter to be probed. I know I can say with complete confidence and with no fear of contradiction that just as the right hon. Gentleman is in his place now, so he will be at the appropriate time tomorrow, and I think there is more than a passing possibility that he will catch my eye.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I am not sure it is, but I always like hearing the hon. Gentleman, especially as he has such a beaming countenance today. So let us hear the attempted “further” from the hon. Gentleman.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

We have heard the suggestion that the Prime Minister said something that was wrong. We heard from the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), from the Scottish National party, that the bit between the ends of the Forth crossing, which I would call “the bridge”, was actually made with steel that was not produced in this country.

[Mr Speaker]

Whatever else may be said, and it may be a point of enormous interest, that is manifestly not a point of order. We will leave the matter there for now. If there are no further points of order, perhaps we can now come to the ten-minute rule motion in the name of the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. Whatever he may have to say tomorrow, I assume that today he intends to address his ten-minute rule motion.

Points of Order

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Tuesday 12th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Things may have changed since I was paying attention to this—it is 25 years since I was a Minister—but in my day, a Minister for the Government spoke with the same authority no matter what rank of Minister they were.

[Mr Speaker]

Certainly the team communicate with the House as a team. That is undeniable. This is not within the power of the Chair. The Secretary of State did courteously write to me to notify me that he would be absent. My sense is that he is not likely to be absent on anything like a regular basis. If that were to happen, it would be strongly deprecated not just by the Chair but by Members across the House. Let us hope it does not happen again. If there are no further points of order, perhaps we can move on to the ten-minute rule motion.

Transpeople (Prisons)

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Friday 20th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Very well. I will take the hon. Gentleman’s point of order now, and then respond to both points of order.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

In my extensive experience here, Mr Speaker, I do not think there has ever been a convention that only the Secretary of State can speak for his or her Department, or for the Government. I think that some of the words used in that point of order were pejorative, given that part of the criticism we heard earlier was based on the fact that the Secretary of State had been speaking about the issue.

[Mr Speaker]

There are a couple of points to be made in response to what the hon. Gentleman has just said. First, the use of pejorative comments is not a novel phenomenon in the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman need not sound quite so shocked, or display his offended sensibilities, at the notion that a right hon. or hon. Member has indulged in that practice.

The hon. Gentleman’s second point may well be helpful to the House as a whole, but I hope he will not take it amiss if I say that it had already penetrated the recesses of what passes for my brain. [Laughter.] In short, I was myself aware of that fact, simply because I have had the rather fortunate vantage point of the Speaker’s Chair since June 2009.

I do not have the statistical analysis in front of me, but I can confirm that, first, it is commonplace for a shadow Secretary of State’s opposite number to come along, and secondly, it is also commonplace for another Minister to do so. Quite what the stats show I do not know, but if the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) is interested in the analysis, I dare say that—no state secret is involved—it could be supplied to her or to any other Member when it has been completed.

Finally, let me say that a certain amount of speculation is taking place in the Chamber on the precise whereabouts of the Secretary of State. I do not know, I have not inquired, it does not greatly concern me, and it is not a matter for the Chair; but I hope that, whatever he is doing, he is enjoying himself.

Her Majesty the Queen

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Wednesday 9th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

May I add the thanks of everybody involved in all the voluntary organisations and charities to which the Queen has given leadership and inspiration over the years?

[Mr Speaker]

A great speech—possibly the hon. Gentleman’s greatest ever!

Today’s Business of the House

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We all echo the comment about the Leader of the House’s Churchillian speech-making—a point that I have myself made several times.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend read out the words on page 11 of the report. May I take some words from the earlier report? It suggests that an

“open division for deciding the question can be seen as a deterrent to the House expressing its views honestly”,

wherein it is bound by the seven principles of public life to be honest. That seems to be a plus for the motion. It says:

“A secret ballot…may…seem unnecessarily unwieldy.”

That seems a bit odd. Its reference to

“a more frequent turnover of Speakers”

makes me question whether you, Sir, have been asked whether you have a personal objection to the House considering this and whether you mind what decision we come to.

Home Affairs

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Thursday 9th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. An hon. Member has just called across the House, saying, “Stop making that stupid face.” Is that parliamentary language?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I did not hear the expression concerned, but I think that it falls into the category of behaviour that is discourteous but not disorderly. We will leave it there for the time being, but I appeal to Members on both sides of the House to remember what I said yesterday. Speaking on behalf of the House and of the public, I believe that we should try to express ourselves with restraint, moderation and good humour, in the best traditions required by “Erskine May”.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not be held back for long.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would you accept a motion that the right hon. Gentleman be no longer heard?

[Mr Speaker]

No.

Points of Order

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Thursday 24th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. After the next business, we move on to a debate on voting at 16. Most Members of the House and most people outside were not able to watch the debate on that subject by the Youth Parliament. Would it be possible for you, Mr Speaker, or another occupant of the Chair to provide some time today information on the web link, if that is available for others to look at, so that they can see the young people’s debate on the subject that we are about to come to?

[Mr Speaker]

That is a very helpful point of order from the hon. Gentleman; I should not say that with such a note of surprise in my voice. I would want to be able to accommodate his request, although I cannot say for certain how quickly it can be done. He is right that the Youth Parliament had a very important debate on the matter, and it would helpful if there were wider access to it. I thank him, and we will try to oblige.

Bill Presented

Marriage (Same Sex Couples)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Maria Miller, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Theresa May, Secretary Michael Gove, Secretary Eric Pickles, Hugh Robertson, Lynne Featherstone, Mrs Helen Grant and Jo Swinson, presented a Bill to make provision for the marriage of same sex couples in England and Wales, about gender change by married persons and civil partners, about consular functions in relation to marriage, for the marriage of armed forces personnel overseas, and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 126) with explanatory notes (Bill 126-EN).

Business without Debate

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think that the matter has already been debated in a European Committee. It is therefore not immediately obvious to me how a debate would have been sought today. The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question—

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I do not require any further point of order. The answer to the question is no.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have made the point. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As of now, I have received no such indication. I recognise the importance of the matter to the hon. Gentleman and to others. What he has said will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench.

If the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), having exercised a modicum of restraint and patience, wishes to pursue a different point of order, he may do so.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question that I put to you was whether the Opposition could have had such a debate, rather than whether they should have had one. The answer may be the same, but the answer that the House was given was not relevant to the question that I had put.

[Mr Speaker]

The answer is no. I am grateful for the linguistic clarification, but the answer is the same.

Sergei Magnitsky

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the debate you kindly answered a question about a communication from the Russian ambassador. If you feel that it would be suitable to invite the ambassador to a reception, many of us would like to come and listen to what he has to say about the matter we have just discussed.

[Mr Speaker]

It is very good of the hon. Gentleman, and very helpful, to seek to arrange my extra-Chamber calendar in the way he proposes, but I will reflect and digest—

Health and Social Care (Re-committed) Bill

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before the House embarks on the Bill, it may help if I deal with a matter that has been raised with me concerning the 715 virtually identical Government amendments changing the phrase “commissioning consortia” to “clinical commissioning groups”. These are the fourth group on today’s selection list. It has never been the practice of the House or its Committees to allow a single global amendment to make a series of identical or very similar amendments. The rule that any substantive change to the text of the Bill must be done by an amendment is designed for the protection of the rights of all Members and the integrity of the legislative process. I do understand that in this case it leads to a particularly bulky amendment paper. The fact that a practice is long-standing does not, in my view, mean that it is sacrosanct. Any hon. Member who wishes is of course free to ask the Procedure Committee to inquire into this matter. I hope that that is helpful.

I should also inform the House that amendment 781, which is printed on page 2985, should appear on page 3051, and amendments 945 and 946, which are printed on page 3138, should appear on page 3068. That has no material effect on today’s proceedings, but I know that the House will have wanted me to share those crucial nuggets of information with it.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House will have noted your comments about the repetitive amendments. Are we to take it that we have to go through quite a lengthy procedure in order just to be able to list the places where the words would be substituted? Is it not possible—is it not in your power or that of the Leader of the House—to make the change without having to go through weeks and weeks of Committees and other consideration? I do not necessarily need an answer now, but that is a consideration to which I would have thought a reforming Speaker might have found a solution.

[Mr Speaker]

I thought that I had found a very satisfactory way forward—one that should appease the hon. Gentleman and perhaps mollify him, putting him in a better frame of mind. There will be a grouping. If he is inquiring of me whether a separate Division will be required to give effect—

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head from a sedentary position to indicate that that is not the burden of his proposition, in which case I am not sure what is. I can nevertheless assure him that no separate Division will be required. I think that at the end of our proceedings he will be in the good humour to which we know he is accustomed.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The point was the one that you have made, which is that the amendment has to be repeated, with different pages and lines. I suggest that an amendment might be tabled setting out a list of the pages and lines where it applied.

[Mr Speaker]

What I am saying is what I have already said, which is that there is no provision for a global amendment. An amendment is required to be made in each case. That does not entail a separate Division or what the hon. Gentleman in his first point of order described with some trepidation as a “lengthy procedure”. There will be no requirement for a lengthy procedure. Ministers seem sanguine; so am I—so, I think, should the House be. Perhaps we can now proceed to the business before us.

New Clause 2

Conditions relating to the continuation of the provision of services etc.

‘(1) The things which a licence holder may be required to do by a condition under section 104(1)(i)(i) include, in particular—

(a) providing information to the commissioners of services to which the condition applies and to such other persons as Monitor may direct,

(b) allowing Monitor to enter premises owned or controlled by the licence holder and to inspect the premises and anything on them, and

(c) co-operating with such persons as Monitor may appoint to assist in the management of the licence holder’s affairs, business and property.

(2) A commissioner of services to which a condition under section 104(1)(i), (j) or (k) applies must co-operate with persons appointed under subsection (1)(c) in their provision of the assistance that they have been appointed to provide.

(3) Where a licence includes a condition under section 104(1)(i), (j) or (k), Monitor must carry out an ongoing assessment of the risks to the continued provision of services to which the condition applies.

(4) Monitor must publish guidance—

(a) for commissioners of a service to which a condition under section 104(1)(i), (j) or (k) applies about the exercise of their functions in connection with the licence holders who provide the service, and

(b) for such licence holders about the conduct of their affairs, business and property at a time at which such a condition applies.

(5) A commissioner of services to which a condition under section 104(1)(i), (j), or (k) applies must have regard to guidance under subsection (4)(a).

(6) Monitor may revise guidance under subsection (4) and, if it does so, must publish the guidance as revised.

(7) Before publishing guidance under subsection (4) or (6), Monitor must obtain the approval of—

(a) the Secretary of State, and

(b) the National Health Service Commissioning Board.’. —(Mr Lansley.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Draft Financial Services Bill (Joint Committee)

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The issue is whether there is an objection. There are matters that some people, including the right hon. Gentleman, might deem unusual, and that may be so in terms of party combat, but that does not necessarily have an implication for the conduct of proceedings in Parliament or for the judgment of the Chair. That said, the right hon. Gentleman has put his point squarely on the record.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Going one stage further as one of those Members who have, perhaps, been around for longer than we ought to have been, am I right in saying that there is a convention that votes follow voices, but that is not invariably the case?

[Mr Speaker]

It is not, but I strongly deprecate the suggestion that the hon. Gentleman has been around for longer than he ought to have been. [Interruption.] I am not wishing his untimely end, notwithstanding the sedentary dissent of the Patronage Secretary.

Parliamentary Commission for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would it be possible for the Chair of the Public Administration Committee to make the point that he was hoping to make?

[Mr Speaker]

No.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Dame Julie Mellor to the offices of Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England.

Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England (Remuneration)

Resolved,

That, in the opinion of this House, the salary paid to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England should be £152,000 a year, a sum within the range of salaries payable to Permanent Secretaries in the civil service as required by section 2(2) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, as amended by the Parliamentary and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1976; and that this should be subject to (a) any relevant increase for Permanent Secretaries recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body and (b) after the end of the current pay freeze, 1 per cent. annual uprating in lieu of performance pay; and considers that in future, and subject always to the statutory requirements, the remuneration of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England should be agreed by the Prime Minister and the Chair of the Public Administration Select Committee in advance of the recruitment process, and reported to the House, prior to the House being invited to agree to an humble Address on such an appointment.—(Mr Hurd.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Thursday 30th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Ben Bradshaw. He is not here, so I call Sir Peter Bottomley.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

3. Whether the Church Commissioners were consulted on the choice of Ministers to be invited to contribute to the edition of the New Statesman edited by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

House of Commons Commission

Debate between Peter Bottomley and John Bercow

Tuesday 14th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I join the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton) in paying tribute to—I have no idea whether he is right honourable, but if he is not he certainly should be—the Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), and in thanking David Maclean for the service he has given. I say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and to you, Mr Speaker: thank you for the role you fulfil.

I do not know whether the Commission has much to do with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, but IPSA deserves to have as much support as possible in getting right its role. I shall not talk now about its responsibilities, but I would say that IPSA was set up because the House and the Commission—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The subject of IPSA has precisely nothing—repeat, nothing—to do with the terms of the motion. I therefore know that the hon. Gentleman will not seek to dilate on the matter but will confine himself to the specifics of the motion.

[Peter Bottomley]

I thought, Mr Speaker, that I had left IPSA behind in the wake of my introductory remarks, and I intend not to refer to it again.

The point I was going to make is that the holder of your office, Mr Speaker, and the holders of other offices, failed to support Elizabeth Filkin when she was Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am afraid that, although the hon. Gentleman has tried, the second go was no better than the first. The matter has absolutely nothing to do with the terms of the motion, on which I hope the hon. Gentleman will focus the remainder of his remarks.

[Peter Bottomley]

If the House of Commons Commission has no role in relation to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, I am misguided.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let me help the hon. Gentleman. I made no such observation or suggestion whatsoever. The issue is not the sphere of competence of the Commission but the substance of the motion that Members are supposed to be debating.

[Peter Bottomley]

In welcoming the proposed appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), I express the wish that my confidence is not misplaced, as it sadly might have been in the past. If we expect the Commission to be able to defy, on occasion, the wishes of this House and support the work of those who work with the Commission and alongside it, we will be able to praise them not just in advance of their appointment but after their service as well.

I make this point without anticipating contradiction: had we done better in the past, those who take on the responsibility of being part of the Commission would have had, and will have, an easier job than they have had. In the days when I was defending the holder of a different office, most of the House asked why I was doing it. The reason was that the Speaker, the Leader of the House and others have responsibility for considering issues on their merits, and I expect that those appointed to the Commission will do the same.

The fact that there may have been failures in the past was not a big surprise, because some in high authority did not give the backing they should have done. I hope that if any member of the Commission finds that they are in a similar position in future, they will say, openly, “It may be a minority interest, but those who serve in this House have got to be prepared to be unpopular, to defy convention at times, and to remind those who serve this House that virtually every page in “Erskine May” is there because something has happened for the first time.” If anyone rolls out the historic negative, saying, “You can’t do this in a new way because nobody’s done it that way before”, they should read the pages of “Erskine May”—not just the present edition but those from the past as well.

I wish honourable service to those who have joined the Commission, and I praise those who have been part of it. Let us never again find that when MPs are investigated, members of the Commission, whether in that position or in their other positions, fail to back those who ask for a higher standard of behaviour within this House. I say that, I think, without contradiction this time.

[Mr Speaker]

We are grateful.

Question put and agreed to.