Record Copies of Acts

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 20th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Many Members wish to participate in the debate, so there will have to be a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, which will be open to review, depending on progress. We must start with five minutes with the intention of not exceeding that limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), I should emphasise that I am looking to call the shadow deputy Leader of the House at approximately 6.35 pm. I simply make the point that interventions are perfectly orderly and proper, but if there is a profusion of them colleagues on the list wanting to be called to speak will not be called. I am afraid colleagues will have only themselves to blame, to put it as bluntly but politely as I can. Let us help each other.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry that I must now, with immediate effect, reduce the time limit on Back-Bench speeches to three minutes, but I do so with the purpose of trying to accommodate everybody.

Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 18th April 2016 Commons Chamber

Select Committee statement

[Mr Speaker]

We come now to two Select Committee statements. In a moment, I shall ask Mr Bernard Jenkin to address the House. He will do so for up to 10 minutes, during which I remind the House that no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions on its subject, and I will call Mr Bernard Jenkin to respond to those in turn. Members can expect to be called only once. Interventions should be questions and should be brief. The Front Bench team may take part in questioning. The same procedure will be followed for the second Select Committee statement.

These are extremely important matters, but I hope that the House will understand if I express the hope that together, the two Select Committee statements do not consume more than 40 minutes of our time, because there are important Backbench Business Committee debates—two of them, to be precise—to which we need to move on, and in which I want to accommodate all interested would-be contributors. With that, I call the Chair of the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, Mr Bernard Jenkin.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jenkin]

Yes, of course they do. In the end, no public appointment of the general nature that we are talking about is made without a Minister signing off that decision. The question is twofold. First, are Ministers being presented with a choice of candidates that they consider appropriate? If they are, can we be certain that the process has not been fixed to get friends and cronies through the appointment process? We need a balance that the public will respect and have faith in. On job specifications, if we get the process right at the outset, there should be no need for the Minister to complain. If we take away too many safeguards, it is Ministers who will be criticised for the appointments they make, not civil servants who have been sitting on panels and been ignored.

[Mr Speaker]

We are most grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee.

Panama Papers

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 11th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement—it is absolutely a master class in the art of distraction. I am sure that he will join me in welcoming the outstanding journalism that went into exposing the scandal of destructive global tax avoidance that was revealed by the Panama papers. Those papers have driven home what many people have increasingly felt: that there is now one rule for the super-rich, and another for the rest. I am honestly not sure that the Prime Minister fully appreciates the anger that is out there over this injustice. How can it be right that street cleaners, teaching assistants and nurses work and pay their taxes, yet some at the top think that the rules simply do not apply to them?

What has been revealed in the past week goes far beyond what the Prime Minister has called his “private matters”, and today he needs to answer six questions to the House, and—perhaps equally importantly—to the public as a whole. First, why did he choose not to declare his offshore tax haven investment in the House of Commons Register of Members’ Financial Interests, given that there is a requirement to

“provide information of any pecuniary interest”

that might reasonably be thought to influence a Member’s actions? The Prime Minister said that he thinks he mishandled the events of the past week. Does he now realise how he mishandled his own non-declaration six years ago, when he decided not to register an offshore tax haven investment from which he has personally benefited?

Secondly, can he clarify to the House and to the public that when he sold his stake in Blairmore Holdings in 2010, he also disposed of another offshore investment at that time? In particular, were any of the £72,000 of shares that he sold held in offshore tax havens?

The “Ministerial Code” states that

“Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise,”

and that all Ministers

“must provide…a full list…of all interests which might be thought to give rise to a conflict,”

including close family interests. So did the Prime Minister provide the permanent secretary with an account of his offshore interests and if not, did he not realise that he had a clear obligation to do so, when part of his personal wealth was tied up in offshore tax havens and he was now making policy decisions that had a direct bearing on their operation? For example, in 2013 the Prime Minister wrote to the President of the European Council opposing central public registers of beneficial ownership of offshore trusts. So, thirdly, does the Prime Minister now accept that transparency of beneficial ownership must be extended to offshore trusts?

The Panama-based law firm Mossack Fonseca registered more than 100,000 secret firms in the British Virgin Islands. It is a scandal that UK overseas territories registered over half the shell companies set up by Mossack Fonseca. The truth is that the UK is at the heart of the global tax avoidance industry. It is a national scandal and it has got to end. Last year, this Government opposed the EU Tax Commissioner Pierre Moscovici’s blacklist of 30 un-co-operative tax havens. That blacklist included the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands. So my fourth question is: will the Prime Minister now stop blocking European Commission plans for a blacklist of tax havens? It turns out that Lord Blencathra, the former Conservative Home Office Minister, was absolutely right when he wrote to the Cayman Islands Government in 2014 to reassure them that our Prime Minister was making a “purely political gesture” about cracking down on tax havens at the G8. It was designed, he said, to be

“a false initiative which will divert other member states from pursuing their agenda.”

Last June, Treasury officials lobbied Brussels not to take action against Bermuda’s tax secrecy. According to the European Union’s transparency register, the tech giant Google has no fewer than 10 employees lobbying Brussels. Bermuda is the tax haven favoured by Google to channel billions in profits. Conservative MEPs have been instructed on six occasions since the beginning of last year to vote against action to clamp down on aggressive tax avoidance. This is a party incapable of taking serious, internationally co-ordinated action to tackle tax dodging. Across the country and on the Opposition side of the House, there is a thirst for decisive action against global tax avoidance scams that suck revenues out of our public services, while ordinary taxpayers have to foot the bill. It undermines public trust in business, politics and public life. It can and must be brought to an end.

We welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement today about new measures to make companies liable for employees who facilitate tax cheating, but it is also too little, too late. In fact, it was announced by the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury a year ago. People want a Government who act on behalf of those who pay their taxes, not those who dodge their taxes in offshore tax havens. Yesterday, my hon Friend the shadow Chancellor set out a clear plan for transparency. He is a Member of this House who has spent all his time in Parliament exposing tax havens and tax avoidance. His paper included a call for an immediate public inquiry into the Panama papers revelations to establish the harm done to our tax revenues and to bring forward serious proposals for reform.

I say gently to the Prime Minister that a tax taskforce reporting to the Chancellor and the Home Secretary, both members of a party funded by donors implicated in the Panama leaks, will be neither independent nor credible. So will the Prime Minister back a credible and independent public inquiry into the abuses revealed by the leaks?

Our task transparency plan called for a specialised tax enforcement unit to be properly resourced, which is key. Since 2010, there have been only 11 prosecutions over offshore tax evasion—a situation that the Public Accounts Committee described as “woefully inadequate”. Having slashed resources and cut 14,000 staff since 2010, will the Prime Minister today guarantee that resourcing to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will increase in this Parliament?

We support real action to end the abuses that allow the wealthy to dodge the rules that the rest of us have to follow. We need to ensure that trust and fairness are restored to our tax system and our politics and to end the sense and the reality that there is one rule for the richest and another for everybody else. The Prime Minister has attacked tax dodging as immoral, but he clearly failed to give a full account of his own involvement in offshore tax havens until this week and to take essential action to clean up the system, while at the same time blocking wider efforts to do so. There are clear steps that can be taken to bring tax havens and tax dodging under control—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is a Minister standing at the Bar shrieking in an absurd manner. He must calm himself and either take a medicament if required or leave the Chamber.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I suggest that the Prime Minister’s record, particularly over the past week, shows that the public no longer have the trust in him to deal with these matters. Do he and Conservative Members realise why people are so angry? We have gone through six years—yes, six years—of crushing austerity, with families lining up at food banks to feed their children, disabled people losing their benefits, elderly care cut and slashed and living standards going down. Much of that could have been avoided if our country had not been ripped off by the super-rich refusing to pay their taxes.

Let me say this to the Prime Minister: ordinary people in the country will simply not stand for this any more: they want real justice; they want the wealthy to pay their share of tax just as they have to pay when they work hard all the time.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I was going to call the Chair of the Treasury Committee, but he is toddling out of the Chamber.

[Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)]

Well, if you would like to call me, Mr Speaker—

[Mr Speaker]

Let us hear from Mr Tyrie. Get in there, man.

[Mr Tyrie]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure that it will be worth waiting for.

[Mr Tyrie]

It is very good of you to give me the floor, Mr Speaker.

I do not think that the Prime Minister has done anything wrong, except, possibly, to comment on the Jimmy Carr case. Tax evasion is illegal and should be very vigorously pursued, if necessary with criminal prosecution and imprisonment. Tax avoidance is not illegal. If the Government or Parliament do not like it, there is no point in moralising. Does the Prime Minister agree that to deal with tax avoidance we need reform to close the loopholes, and vigorous tax simplification to ensure that there are fewer of them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Does the Prime Minister recall that in the time after he became Prime Minister in the coalition, when he was dividing the nation between strivers and scroungers, I asked him a very important question about the windfall he received when he wrote off the mortgage of the premises in Notting Hill and did not write of the mortgage of the premises the taxpayers were helping to pay for in Oxford? I did not receive a proper answer then. Maybe “Dodgy Dave” will answer it now—[Interruption]—and by the way—[Hon. Members: “Withdraw!”]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I do not require any assistance from some junior Minister—an absurd proposition! I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the adjective he used a moment ago. He is perfectly capable of asking his question without using that word. It is up to him, but if he does not wish to withdraw it, I cannot reasonably ask the Prime Minister to answer the question. All he has to do is withdraw that word and think of another.

[Mr Skinner]

Which word?

[Mr Speaker]

I think he knows—the word beginning with D and ending in Y that he used inappropriately. Withdraw—it is very simple.

[Mr Skinner]

I know what you are talking about, Mr Speaker. This man has done more to divide this nation than anybody else, and he has looked after his own pocket. I still refer to him as “Dodgy Dave”—[Interruption.] Do what you like! [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the word—

[Mr Skinner]

Not a chance!

[Mr Speaker]

Very well.

The Speaker ordered Mr Skinner, Member for Bolsover, to withdraw immediately from the House during the remainder of the day’s sitting (Standing Order No. 43), and the Member withdrew accordingly.

[Mr Speaker]

Needless to say, no reply is required to that question.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Well, it is a shocking scandal: we now know that the Prime Minister divested himself of all his shareholdings before he became Prime Minister and has paid his taxes in full.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

May I thank the Prime Minister for his very clear statement? This afternoon, I received a furious email from Martin in my constituency, who said he watched the “Murnaghan” show on Sky News yesterday. He was shocked that the shadow Chancellor

“deliberately misled viewers...His ignorance, whether deliberate or not, should be exposed in Parliament. For a Shadow Chancellor to be so blatantly misleading is not acceptable. The Marxist Moron’s political motivations are obvious but not an excuse.”

He adds that the Prime Minister

“could not have paid inheritance tax even if he wished to as the tax is levied on the estate”—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady. As the Clerk has just pointed out to me, however, this is all very well, but it is nothing to do with the responsibility of the Prime Minister. [Interruption.] Order. Do not argue with the Chair—that is not a wise course of action. The Prime Minister is not responsible for what the shadow Chancellor has said. I say that to the hon. Lady kindly but with some authority in these matters, believe me.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

No one in this House should have to feel that family members are being attacked unfairly, and, in that, the Prime Minister is absolutely correct. May I tell him, though, that it is not clear to me what he believes about holding shares in offshore trusts in tax havens? Does he think that that is perfectly okay, in which case, why would his holding them have been a conflict of interest, or does he think that tax havens are a problem that needs fixing, in which case, why did he have such shares in the first place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister referred to his anti-corruption summit. Will he tell us which countries will be represented there? Will an invitation be extended to either President Putin or some of his corrupt cronies, and those who fund the RT propaganda channel, to explain the $2 billion held in Panama by that corrupt regime?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has been restored to rude health. I welcomed him earlier, and I know that the Prime Minister will welcome him.

[The Prime Minister]

I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman back in his familiar place. It is fair to say that the guest list for the anti-corruption summit is still being worked on. The point is that we will ask people not on the basis that they run perfect countries or perfect Governments but on the basis of whether they will commit to public declarations on things like open beneficial ownership registration, sharing tax information, and making sure that when assets are looted we can confiscate them and restore them to the people they belong to. If countries want to sign up to that, we will be encouraging them to come and do just that, however imperfect their record may have been in the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry to disappoint remaining colleagues, but we have had a full exchange and must now move on to the second statement.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for mentioning my local golf course; I am the MP for Royal Troon, and we look forward to welcoming people in July.

Will the Secretary of State discuss with Front-Bench colleagues a regional strategy for smaller airports—at Prestwick, people fly in over Royal Troon—and, while the Chancellor is in a listening mood, will they consider a VAT reduction for rural tourism, which would help many constituencies across the UK?

[Mr Speaker]

Presumably with a view to people then playing golf.

[Dr Whitford]

But they need to come here first.

[Mr Speaker]

Indeed they do, as the hon. Lady pertinently observes from a sedentary position.

[David Mundell]

I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss those issues further. I am also very interested in pursuing the proposed Ayrshire regional growth deal, which, in promoting tourism in that part of Scotland, will have golf at its heart.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

This is the first opportunity in Parliament to put on the record our total revulsion at and condemnation of the terrorist atrocities in Brussels, as well as our solidarity with everybody affected. We join the Secretary of State for Scotland in that.

The promotion of the Ryder cup in Scotland was a huge achievement for the Scottish Government and the then First Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond). Today is the last sitting day of the Scottish Parliament. Given that he is standing down from Holyrood, may I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his remarkable tenure as an MSP and as First Minister, and pay tribute to all other MSPs from all parties who are retiring? Does the Secretary of State agree that there is much that can be built on following the success of the Ryder cup? How does he plan to contribute to that?

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that that was a courteous tribute, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not object if I say that the first part of his question was way off the fairway.

[David Mundell]

Securing the Ryder cup to be held in Scotland was a significant event. I agree that the former First Minister of Scotland has made a remarkable contribution to Scottish politics, although the right hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) and I will probably differ on the detail of that. What the former First Minister and many MSPs who are standing down—I also pay tribute to them—have done, and what we all need to do, is promote Scotland together, because that is when we get the best results for Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The truth is that it was a Budget that fell apart in two days. The truth is that many people with disabilities went through the most unbelievable levels of stress and trauma after the PIP announcement was made. There are many people who are still going through stress and trauma in our society. There are still—[Interruption.] I am not sure that the Government Members who are shouting so loudly have any idea what it is like to try to balance a budget at home when you do not have enough money coming in, the rent is going up and the children need clothes.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is too much shouting on both sides of the House. Stop it. The public are bored stiff by it. The right hon. Gentleman will finish his question and we will have an answer. There will be no shouting from Members of any grouping. That is the message.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The Budget has to mean something for everybody in our society, however poor and however precarious their lives are. This Budget downgraded growth, downgraded wage growth and downgraded investment. The Chancellor has failed on debt targets and failed on deficit targets, as the official figures have shown. The fiscal rule is quite simply failing. The Treasury Committee scrutinised the Government’s fiscal rule and could not find any credible economist who backed it. Can the Prime Minister find anybody who backs a policy and a Budget with a big hole in it which downgrades every single forecast the Government set themselves before the Budget was made?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend; anti-Semitism is an absolute cancer in our societies and we should know that when it grows it is the signal of many even worse things happening to ethnic groups and different groups all over our country. There is, sadly, a growth of anti-Semitism in our country and we see it in attacks on Jewish people and Jewish students—it absolutely has to be stamped out. We should all, whatever organisation we are responsible for, make sure that happens. I have to say that we do see a growth in support for segregation and indeed for anti-Semitism in part of the Labour party, and I say to its leader that it is his party and he should sort it out. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This sort of gesticulation across the Chamber is way below the level and the dignity of senior Members on the Front Bench on either side. It is terribly tedious—cut it out.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

When terrorists attack Brussels or Paris or London or Glasgow, we are as one in our condemnation of the atrocities, as we equally condemn the killings of Yazidis, of Kurds, of Syrians and of Iraqis by Daesh and others extremists. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to those who work here and abroad to protect us in the face of the ongoing terrorist threat, so will the Prime Minister confirm that absolutely everything is being done to help the Belgian authorities and the people of Belgium in the wake of the Brussels attacks?

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will have seen the recent OECD report on literacy and numeracy in England. Based on data from 2012, it ranked our teenagers bottom out of 23 developed countries for basic maths and reading—a damning indictment of 13 years of Labour’s education policy—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady is entitled to ask her question, and the same goes for every other Member.

[Suella Fernandes]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does that not show why a more rigorous curriculum and more autonomy for schools to succeed are vital to turn around the life chances of the next generation?

European Council

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Pressure on time requires brevity, in my experience unfailingly represented by Mr John Redwood.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Given the obvious difficulty in unifying the very varied economies and societies of the current EU, why is now a good time to accelerate possible Turkish membership?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I would call the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) if she were standing, but she is not so I cannot do so. There you are. You have a clue: if you stand, you will get in.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has reiterated his Government’s support for Turkey’s accession to the European Union. In doing so, he helpfully pointed out that there would be no status quo option in the forthcoming referendum. What assessment has he made of the long-term effect on migration from Turkey, and of any additional costs to the UK taxpayer in increased contributions to the EU, if it were to join? Or is he in favour of Turkey’s accession to the EU at any price to the UK taxpayer?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I warn colleagues: as they know, I normally call everyone and the Prime Minister most patiently replies, but I fear that that almost certainly will not be possible today. Brevity will help, however.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I welcome the fact that at the end of the Prime Minister’s statement he reminded the House of his commitment to estate regeneration. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a classic example of one nation Conservatism, given that it is proven to deliver not only better homes and communities for those who live in our inner cities, but the supply of new homes for first-time buyers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Now is the time for what I call considerate brevity.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

What recent discussions have been had with other NATO members on bearing down on and stopping the vile people-trafficking trade from Syria?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think that the Irish based their entire case on oil revenues that disappeared. [Interruption.] Oh, that was not the plan. I seem to remember that the plan was referring to $100-a-barrel oil as a modest, mid-market—[Interruption.] You can tell they do not like it. When you are shouting, you are losing.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr MacNeil, I have told you before that you are an exceptionally excitable fellow. You have aspirations to statesmanship and must comport yourself accordingly. Now, we will have an altogether more subdued tone.

[Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

It is often said that the EU is undemocratic and that laws are imposed on us. Is not the decision that the Prime Minister reports today on VAT an example of how Britain can mould and shape those rules and regulations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As colleagues know, it is very unusual for me not to accommodate everybody, but time is against us and we must move on. If colleagues who were unsuccessful in respect of this statement are patient—who knows?—their voices might be heard. Let us hear the next statement, a statement from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Letwin]

The hon. Lady simply ignores the fact that the Government have taken the action, which should have been taken long ago and which the previous Labour Government completely failed to do, to deal with contractors who are not up to scratch. We are dealing with contracts that are necessary to improve matters and are improving them so that people get the services they deserve, which is why all our welfare programmes are now back on track.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. Colleagues should be able to hear.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

T8. A constituent of mine who works for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in Shipley has contacted me after being told by his managers that he is unable to help the campaign to leave the EU in the forthcoming referendum and even to deliver leaflets in his own time. Given that Government Ministers are free to campaign in a personal capacity to leave the EU, why are the Government not extending the same courtesy to civil servants?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Letwin]

I am sorry that the hon. Lady obviously has not read the items on the website; a multitude of specific dates for specific programmes are given, and we will continuously update this as we go through the Parliament. It is true that we are the most transparent Government ever in this country and one of the three most transparent Governments in the world. Maintaining that is quite a good goal, and I would have expected her to welcome it.

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, I call Marion Fellows.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

T4. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Almost two thirds of people in Scotland want to see charities speaking up for those affected by Government policies, which is why the Scottish Government and the Scottish National party are against the new anti-advocacy clause. Will the Minister commit to assessing the impact it will have on Scottish charities?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I will look at that, but what we all have to realise is that the levy control framework—the extra amount of money that we are prepared to put into renewable energy—is a finite amount. In the end, we have to make sure that we get cost-effective electricity and that we go green at the lowest cost. That is the aim, but I will look carefully at what my hon. Friend says.

[Mr Speaker]

Finally, I call Mr Barry Gardiner.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

It used to be said that an English family’s home was their castle, but following the Government’s Housing and Planning Bill, new tenants in social housing will be on fixed three to five-year contracts. Does the Prime Minister think it is right that a student beginning their secondary education may face eviction at the very time they are coming up to their GCSEs or A-levels?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We will come to points of order. I think hon. Members raising points of order should have an attentive audience, which seems more likely once those leaving have done so quickly and quietly.

What is more, I am sorry to disappoint hon. Members, whose eagerness is evident for all to see, but points of order of course come after the urgent question and the statement. As I am sure these are very genuine points of order, hon. Members will come scurrying back to the Chamber in order to air their concerns at the appropriate moment.

Meanwhile, we have quite a considerably important and rich parliamentary offering—[Laughter.] I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare)—in the form of an urgent question from a very senior denizen of the House.

House of Commons Members’ Fund (No. 2) Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

Friday 4th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Rob Wilson)]

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) appreciates expediency in these proceedings, so I will keep my comments fairly brief. I congratulate him on promoting this Bill. It was introduced as a 10-minute rule Bill—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I would not wish to misunderstand the Minister. Was “expedition” the word for which he was looking?

[Mr Wilson]

No, it was “expediency”. I am used to having my grammar and English corrected, so I will take that as another correction.

This Bill was introduced by a 10-minute rule on 4 November. My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley made the point that it is not a Government Bill nor a Government handout Bill; it is a minor House of Commons management Bill. However, I am pleased to support it. The Bill is not new; two similar private Members’ Bills in the last Parliament fell owing to lack of time.

The Bill received its Second Reading on 29 January, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) for the huge amount of work that he put in to get it to a point where it could enjoy majority support in this House and the other place, and for his open approach to dealing with all stakeholders who have an interest in it. His work has been continued in this Parliament by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley. The Bill will modernise the House of Commons Members’ Fund which is governed by legislation dating back to 1939. It will remove unnecessary and outdated costs, and move towards a more efficient system, which we support. Importantly, it will enable us to return approximately £2 million that is not needed as part of the fund to the Treasury.

The existing legislation is outdated, incomprehensible and rigid, and it imposes unnecessary costs. Reform will simplify and clarify the legislation, streamline administration, reduce costs, and allow the fund to be self-sufficient. The new legislation will reflect the changed and smaller demands on the fund given the dwindling number of dependants of Members who left the House before MPs’ pensions were introduced. It will also permit trustees to suspend compulsory deductions from Members’ pay that are no longer needed. It is the trustees’ intention to do that immediately, and the Bill’s changes to legislation allow them to so.

The Bill will remove the need for an annual contribution from the Exchequer while leaving sufficient funds to finance help to former Members and their dependants in future years. The fund was established under the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 1939, predating the pension scheme for MPs that was established in 1964. Its original purpose was to provide former Members, their widows or widowers and orphan children, with a discretionary grant in lieu of a pension. Further Acts were passed in 1948, 1981 and 1991 to allow former Members and their dependants to apply for assistance, particularly in financial hardship. Those amendments also broadened the class of beneficiaries, granted wide powers of discretion to trustees, and established periodic payments to specific classes of beneficiaries. As a consequence, provision was made in 1981 for the fund to be supplemented by a higher annual Exchequer contribution.

The House of Commons Members’ Fund was established when there was no parliamentary pension, to help former Members and their dependants who had financial difficulties. Only 12 of those beneficiaries remain. In addition, the fund makes payments to top-up pensions for widows of Members up to five-eighths of their spouse’s pension for those who left the House when widows received a lower pension entitlement. There are 27 people in that category today. Numbers of beneficiaries in those two categories are decreasing.

The largest category of former Members and their dependants for whom there is likely to remain an ongoing need are those who left the House more recently and have fallen into need because of sickness, disability, or inability to return to work after losing their seat. A small number of such cases occur each year. The fund is able to award one-off grants or ongoing help on a discretionary basis. A report on the fund was sponsored jointly by the Members Estimate Audit Committee and the trustees in 2006-07. Both bodies shared a concern about the complexity of the fund’s governing legislation and consequential financial arrangements. A final report was produced by John Stoker and Lord Burnett in April 2007, outlining their recommendations for the fund.

The main recommendations were that the fund be divided into two distinct functions: first to provide a benevolent function—the payment of one-off hardship grants—and that function would be overseen by the trustees, with assets sufficient to meet likely future hardship payments; and, secondly to meet annual “as of rights” payments. The balance of the fund not required to finance the benevolent function would be repatriated. In practice, the Treasury, the House, or some other body would have to take responsibility for the payment function. In addition, the annual Exchequer grant of £215,000 would no longer be paid into the fund.

Following the review, the Members Estimate Committee considered the recommendations at its meeting in November 2007 and endorsed the report. During discussions that took place after the MEC meeting with the officials of the Leader of the House, a number of obstacles were identified. In particular, there were problems identifying a suitable Department to take on the annual regular grants to enable the fund’s two functions to be separated, to ensure that no further Treasury contributions would be taken and to return excess funds to the Treasury. Legislation is required to split the fund’s functions. The Leader of the House and the trustees have explored restructuring the fund through new primary legislation, but it has been difficult to find Government time for a stand-alone Bill. Until now there has been no opportunity to change the legislation.

Despite general agreement by all parties that the fund should be restructured, in the absence of new legislation the trustees have continued to administer the fund in its existing form. However, the trustees agreed that they would draw a lower annual Treasury contribution to cover the regular annual grants only. From 1 October 2011, £148,000 was drawn, rather than the maximum of £215,000, and from 1 January 2015 the trustees ceased the draw-down altogether. Once the legislation governing the fund has been reformed, the trustees intend to return £2 million to the Treasury, and there will be no provision for an annual Exchequer contribution to the fund.

Since the review in 2007, the trustees have explored a number of avenues to change the fund’s governing legislation. That has included attempts to obtain time on the Floor of the House for a stand-alone Bill, and using other legislative vehicles to make changes, such as the Public Service Pensions Bill and the Finance Bill. The trustees have decided to pursue a private Member’s Bill, with Government support.

The changes proposed are largely technical and will simplify the fund and the associated administrative burden. Those changes will make the fund easier to administer, and allow trustees to spend time on the main thrust of the fund, which is to assist former Members and their dependants in financial need. There is nothing more for me to say, other than that I wish this short and effective Bill swift progress through the Lords.

EU Referendum: Civil Service Guidance

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 29th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I have a huge amount of respect for my right hon. Friend. That is why I will answer his specific point. The question is exactly the reason for prescribing this guidance only in respect of the in/out issue rather than more broadly. That is what the guidance says. This broad approach was set up by the Prime Minister in January, and then discussed and agreed in Cabinet on 20 February as the best way to take forward the position whereby Ministers could disagree with the Government position.

[Mr Speaker]

It is very decent of the Minister to dole out bowls full of respect, but my sense is that, on the whole, although that is enormously important to hon. and right hon. Members here assembled, they are generally more interested in his answers than in his respect.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I previously asked whether the Prime Minister was going to throw his weight behind the in campaign, and I am very pleased that he has done so, because for the sake of our peace, prosperity, opportunity and security, we need to be in. As for what we are discussing now, I would like some clarity from the Minister. Is it the case that there is a list of Ministers who are in, a list of Ministers who are out and a list of Ministers who are undecided, and what happens if a Minister switches from the in to the out campaign or the out to the in campaign?

[Matthew Hancock]

First of all, Mr Speaker, I have respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and I also have respect for you—but perhaps I will drop all that. When the Cabinet met after the Prime Minister agreed the deal with other members of the European Union, Ministers at that point were asked to state their position—whether they wanted to remain or leave—and I doubt whether any of those positions will change.

[Mr Speaker]

Veritably, my cup runneth over at the generosity and good grace of the Minister, to whom we are indebted.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The Minister calls on the law. The question of voter trust in this referendum, as I said to both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on 3 and 25 February, is paramount. For the voters who will decide this question, knowledge is, as we know, power. Does the Minister deny that under sections 6 and 7 of the later and express provisions of the European Union Referendum Act 2015, a legal duty is imposed on the Government to provide referendum information and the voter is entitled to accurate and impartial information, as the Minister for Europe agreed in reply to me when the House debated that Bill, through and from the Government and all Ministers of the Crown equally, and that this therefore being a statutory obligation overrides any prime ministerial prerogative such as the Cabinet Secretary acted upon in the guidance of 23 February? Does the Minister therefore deny that civil servants as Crown servants are legally obliged to provide such information accurately and impartially to all Ministers within their Departments so that the voters are properly informed and empowered to answer the question in the referendum?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

That is the normal course of events. It is for Ministers to make the argument, and for civil servants to support the Government’s position.

[Mr Speaker]

Mr David Davis.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I was not standing, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman is a most dextrous parliamentarian, and I am sure that he can recover very quickly. I think the accurate characterisation would be that he had been standing. He did not do so on this occasion, probably because he was chuntering from a sedentary position. He then stood again at my exhortation. He has now had plenty of time in which to formulate his question.

[Mr Davis]

It is all right, Mr Speaker. I was not sure whether it was the other David Davies whom you were calling.

We are fortunate to live in a democracy. We are not guided by Cabinet Secretary guidelines. As far as I know there is no manifesto basis for this, and as far as I know there has been no House of Commons vote for it, so what is the constitutional basis of the Prime Minister’s decision? Is it the royal prerogative?

Points of Order

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 29th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the exchanges that we have just had, it was noted that the Minister did not refer to the question and answer brief that has been circulated by the Cabinet Office to civil servants, which carries some of the wider interpretation of the letter. I wonder how I can draw the House’s attention to the fact that we will be publishing it on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee website later today or tomorrow.

[Mr Speaker]

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

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Mrs Main]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

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

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

[Mrs Main]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I will come back to Members who are expectant—[Interruption.] Well, expectant of the opportunity to raise points of order, I should perhaps say. But perhaps I may be permitted to take other points of order first. We will come to those illustrious denizens ere long.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This morning the Secretary of State for Wales—I have made his office aware of my intention to raise this point of order—announced major changes to the timetable and content of the proposed Wales Bill; he has decided to jackknife the Bill and skid it to an undignified halt. Instead of coming to the House to inform right hon. and hon. Members and answer their questions about how he will proceed, he choose to make that significant announcement in front of a gathering of journalists in Cardiff, even suggesting on Twitter that hon. Members can wait until Thursday to question him. Did he give you any indication that he would be announcing this major change of policy today, Mr Speaker, and has he indicated that he will be making an oral statement to the House, as per paragraph 9.1 of the ministerial code?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. The answer is that I have had no advance notice of this matter. It would be only fair for me, from the Chair, to say at this stage that whether it amounts to what she has described as a major change of policy or is merely a temporary pause or tactical judgment, I do not know. Suffice it to say that if there is a change of policy or a significant change in Government intentions for a notable period, the House would expect properly to be informed of that, and there are means by which Ministers can inform the House: either through the device of an answer to a written question or by a written ministerial statement. To my knowledge, neither has thus far been forthcoming. The hon. Lady’s point of order and my response to it will shortly be heard by the Wales Office, and I hope that proper account will be taken of it. If the hon. Lady needs to return to the point, doubtless she will do so.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your assistance in relation to a matter that is of some concern to me. In December I asked, by means of a written question, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had last met the Financial Conduct Authority to discuss certain matters. The response advised me that Treasury Ministers meet a wide variety of organisations and referred me to the Treasury’s transparency reports online, stating that that is where details of such meetings are published. The reports detailed no bilateral meetings between the Treasury and the FCA over a two-year period.

I therefore challenged the Economic Secretary to the Treasury—she is aware that I am raising this matter today—on that point during a Back-Bench business debate on 12 January. She did not address the matter in her response, so I raised it with her again in a Back-Bench business debate on 1 February. To my great surprise, the hon. Lady stated:

“Contrary to what the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire seems to think,”—[Official Report, 1 February 2016; Vol. 605, c. 748.]

she had met the acting chief executive of the FCA, and that she regretted that I had formed a different opinion.

Of course, my opinion was formed on the basis of a written answer, the Treasury’s own transparency reports and exchanges with the Minister in this Chamber, all of which I should have been entitled to rely upon. It is worth noting that a similar issue has arisen in relation to another question, with the Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People referring me to a non-existent or impossible to locate piece of information on the Department for Work and Pensions website.

The record therefore suggests that I have misunderstood or am mistaken, but neither is true. I would be very much obliged for your advice, Mr Speaker, on how to put the record straight on this matter. Finally, I would be most grateful if you could advise me on how best to stop Ministers referring Members to websites that do not contain relevant information.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order, the thrust of which she was kind enough to give me advance notice. I think that I am right in saying that she also gave notice to the Minister concerned.

[Kirsten Oswald]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that confirmation. The short answer to the hon. Lady—this is for the benefit of the House—is that answers to Members’ questions should be direct, substantive and candid. I have sympathy with the view, which she has expressed, that it is not helpful if Government Departments simply refer right hon. and hon. Members in written answers to websites on which the information requested may be located but cannot easily be found. The much more straightforward process, which I think the public would expect, would be to provide an answer to the question. It is not really all that complicated.

That said, I have to emphasise, of course, that the content of written answers, and indeed of ministerial statements in the House, has to be a matter for the judgment of individual Ministers; it is not for the Chair to determine. However, I am offering an overall sentiment, which I think would be shared across the House. As to how the hon. Lady can put the matter straight, I suggest that, by dint of this point of order, she has begun to do so.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order relates not to the ministerial code but to the conduct of the House of Commons. When Ministers come to the House of Commons, they are required to give full and informed answers to the questions we ask as Members of Parliament. Having given the matter some thought, can you give us some guidance on how we will know whether Ministers have been fully informed, if we know that there is a process of purposely withholding information from those who may be required to give answers to the House of Commons? How can we then carry out our duty of scrutiny properly?

[Mr Speaker]

I fear that it would be hazardous for me to tread on the terrain of what might be called the “known unknowns” or even the “unknown unknowns”. That would be difficult. The question, though a very good and legitimate one, is, I fear, at this stage hypothetical, but it is a problematic matter. The best I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that the Chair, of course, will keenly attend to events and to the process of question and answer, and we will have to look at this matter as and when it arises, on a case by case basis. I will not be looking at it proactively, but if Members raise the matter with the Chair, the Chair will do his best to respond.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have already expressed my admiration for my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who is on the Front Bench. I wonder whether there is any mechanism to reward someone who, first, is thrown into the lion’s den and, secondly, has to defend the indefensible.

[Mr Speaker]

I think I will treat that as what it is: not a point of order, but an inventive rhetorical question. At any rate, the hon. Gentleman seems justly satisfied, so I think we will, for now, leave it there. We are deeply grateful to the Minister for coming into the Chamber and responding to our inquiries.

If there are no further points of order, and the appetite has been satisfied, at any rate for today, we now come to the motion on the draft European Union Referendum (Date of Referendum etc.) Regulations 2016. Just before I ask the Minister—my illustrious neighbour, the Member for Aylesbury—to move the motion, I should inform the House that I have now considered the instrument, and I have decided not to certify it under Standing Order No. 83P.

European Council

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I gently remind the House that people who wish to take part in the exchanges should have been here at the start and remained throughout? People who have gone in and out of the Chamber, and may have come back in again, should not then be standing. That is very much in breach of the traditions of the House, and we need to be clear about that.

[Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)]

One of the bogeymen policies for me was closer political union. If this country votes to stay in the EU on 23 June, what guarantees has the Prime Minister got that these things will be put in statute or written into a treaty at that time?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to make that point. I do not know whether I will make it to Wimbledon, but I hope to make it to many parts of our country over the next four months to make exactly that point. We have not solved all of Britain’s problems with Europe—we have not solved all of Europe’s problems—but we have fundamentally addressed four major problems: too much of a single currency club, too much regulation, too much of a political union and not enough national determination over free-movement abuse and welfare. Those four things go to the heart of the problems we have had with this organisation.

[Mr Speaker]

As the Prime Minister knows very well, it is always worth while going to Wimbledon.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the Prime Minister welcome the support he has received today, surprisingly, from the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, who has joined his campaign and who supports it, or will he encourage the people of Northern Ireland to stay in tune with his Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has indicated very strongly, in tune with them, that they should leave? If he is not going to support his Secretary of State, will he, then, follow the Deputy First Minister’s advice that she should resign? Will he now support his Secretary of State?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I will try to accommodate remaining colleagues, but short questions are now required. We are having pithy answers but we need short questions.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

As someone who has an open mind and can see competing arguments on both sides, may I ask that we ensure that the information used in the campaign is factually correct? A few weeks ago, a letter criticising the Prime Minister appeared in The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail, apparently signed by a local Conservative activist from my constituency, linking the association to the letter, yet no one had ever heard of that person. May I ask that information put forward by both sides is fair, accurate and factually correct so that the British public can decide on the basis of fair evidence?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Politicians complaining about the BBC is a pretty common activity. I remember the former First Minister of Scotland getting quite heated about this issue. Every media organisation is under an obligation—sorry, let me restate that, because it is certainly not true of the newspapers. Every regulated television business is under a duty of impartiality, and I am sure the BBC will carry that out.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Prime Minister, other colleagues and, indeed, all 103 Back Benchers who have taken part in this important exchange.