Birth of Prince George of Cambridge

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I beg to move,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty offering the congratulations of this House to Her Majesty, His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, Their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall and Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the birth of Prince George; and signifying to Her Majesty the great pleasure given to the House by this happy event.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the message on the birth of Prince George of Cambridge.

[The Prime Minister]

Many generations in the House of Windsor have been welcomed by many generations in this House of Commons, and we are delighted to do so again today. Of course, in centuries past things were slightly different. When a royal birth of this significance took place, the entire Cabinet would assemble at the birthplace and the Home Secretary would actually be in the room at the time of the birth. [Interruption.] One of my hon. Friends says, “Quite right.” I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that this was not seen as appropriate on this occasion.

The birth of Prince George was a national moment—a time to recognise, once again, what a vital part of our national life the monarchy is. In the past few years we have seen a surge of affection for our royal family, from the royal wedding to the diamond jubilee and coronation celebrations. This summer, millions cheered the news of the royal birth.

We must remember, however, that this birth has been not just a national event, but, first and foremost, a private and family event. It is right that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have been given the space and privacy to get to know their new son. In the coming years they must continue to be allowed that space.

For now, I know the whole House will join me in congratulating the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and in wishing Prince George a long and happy life at the heart of our nation.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Ah, a Northamptonshire choice. I call Mr Philip Hollobone.

[Mr Hollobone]

What does the Minister expect the footprint of the Government estate to be by the end of the present Parliament compared with May 2010?

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to make. What we seek is best value for the British taxpayer and to use the British Government’s procurement spend to allow for growth as far as possible in this country. We are of course bound by certain EU procurement rules, with which I am sure he is very familiar. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There are a lot of very noisy conversations taking place, including on the Opposition Benches, but I am sure that Members will wish to be quiet to hear Stella Creasy.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

11. What steps he is taking to increase information-sharing between Government and businesses on cyber-attacks.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)]

The hon. Gentleman knows very well that we spent a significant amount of time on this in the House yesterday and that there is more opportunity to discuss it next week. He will also know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I met charity leaders on Monday and will continue to do so. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is still far too much noise in the Chamber. I understand the general excitement, which I am sure is in anticipation of the question from Mr Henry Smith.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

T3. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the £10 billion- worth of efficiency savings that his Department has made on behalf of the taxpayer in the past year. What ambition does he have for the coming year?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Q15. Is it not the case that—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is something of an exotic creature in the House and I think that that excites interest on Government Benches, but I do wish to hear what he has to say and he must be heard.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly congratulate businesses, large and small, in Burnley for the enterprise they have shown. The fact about this recovery is that it is a private sector-led recovery. That is what we needed after massive and excessive Government spending, and it has been very good that businesses up and down the country, including in Burnley, have done so much to take people on and to get our economy moving.

[Mr Speaker]

We will move in a moment to the urgent question from Yvette Cooper. Perhaps Members who are leaving the Chamber could do so quickly and quietly.

Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 29th August 2013 Commons Chamber

[Relevant document: Oral evidence taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 16 July 2013, on Developments in UK Foreign Policy, HC 268-i.]

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to Syria and the use of chemical weapons. The text of the motion that was submitted yesterday, as it appears on the Order Paper, was incorrect. A few words were omitted from line 16. As they are purely factual, I am content that the motion should be moved in a corrected form, a copy of which is available in the Vote Office.

I inform the House that I have selected manuscript amendment (b), which was submitted this morning in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. The text of the manuscript amendment is also available from the Vote Office.

I should also inform the House that I have set a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches in the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

No fewer than 99 right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, meaning that necessarily large numbers of colleagues will be disappointed. As always, the Chair will do its best to accommodate the level of interest, but it will not be assisted by Members coming up to it to ask whether and, if so, when they will be called. I ask Members please not to do so: calmness and patience are required.

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister—or, at least, a spokesperson—told the media yesterday morning that a UN resolution was to be circulated in the afternoon. I believe that it was, but when I asked the Library for the text neither it nor the Foreign Office was available to provide it. Will you, Mr Speaker, look into that?

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Lady is an immensely experienced Member—she is now into her 26th year; she started extremely young—and she knows that that is not a matter for the Chair. She has candidly aired her concern, and the Prime Minister and other Members on the Treasury Bench will have heard what she had to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in favour of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.

I was a member of the Cabinet that decided in good faith that this country should join the invasion of Iraq, and I know how heavy the burden is on those who are charged with such a decision. I also agree that, in many cases, doing nothing is as much a decision as doing something and that the present catastrophe in Syria demands a decision of us. As has been said, the use of chemical weapons is prohibited by customary international law and binding conventions. Short of the use of nuclear weapons, it is the most heinous crime a country can commit, made even more dreadful when chemical weapons are used in civil war on its own people.

I am therefore unhesitatingly in favour of taking the step that will deal as effectively as we can with Assad. But what is that step? What is our locus? How can we be effective, and at what cost? I want to deal with the last question first. The cost in human suffering and human life is clear, but there is another long-term cost—the damage that we may do to the rule of international law in international affairs.

It is obviously deeply frustrating that Russia and China have formed a blocking minority in the Security Council, and I know that Members will want to reinforce the importance of diplomatic initiatives to seek to engage Russia, in particular, in negotiation with the Syrian Government. However, it is also clear that to go to war with Assad—that is what it would be—without the sanction of a UN Security Council resolution would set a terrible precedent. After the mission creep of the Libyan operation, it would amount to nothing less than a clear statement by the US and its allies that we were the arbiters of international right and wrong when we felt that right was on our side. What could we do or say if, at some point, the Russians or Chinese adopted a similar argument? What could we say if they attacked a country without a UN resolution because they claimed it was right and cited our action as a precedent? Legal rectitude may not amount to much, but it is all we have. It remains our best hope, and we cast it aside at terrible peril, hence the importance of the route map set out in the Opposition amendment.

I welcome the decision that the Government have now made to take no action until the UN inspectors have delivered their report, but if or when it is proved conclusively that Assad has used chemical weapons on his people, what can we do to prevent him from doing so again? There will perhaps be time in the future to bring him before the International Criminal Court, but in practical terms, what can we do, even if we are able to get a UN Security Council resolution?

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) mentioned, the US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote to the Senate armed services committee last month—we are all grateful for the excellent briefing by the Library—about having examined five options. He said that controlling chemical weapons would involve billions of dollars each month and involve risks that

“not all chemical weapons would be controlled, extremists could gain better access to remaining weapons, similar risks to no-fly zone but with the added risk to…troops on the ground.”

The situation is parlous, and—

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

If I had 10 minutes to take my hon. Friend through the forensics, I probably could. There is plenty of forensic evidence that will come out of the UN investigation and out of other data that we can obtain by other methods. It is not a question of panic; it is a question of getting the facts right before we act. It is very simple: when we are going to do things which will lead to the death of people, civilians in particular, we should get our facts right first.

That brings me to the Deputy Prime Minister on the “Today” programme this morning, talking about chemical weapons and saying—let me quote him exactly—that it is

“the first time in close to a century”

that we have seen—in Syria, he means—

“the ever more frequent use of chemical weapons.”

I recommend that he speaks to our American allies. The CIA has recently declassified and published its information on Iraq’s use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, in which the west provided intelligence data in order for the Iraqis to be able to target their activities more effectively, killing 50,000 Iranians. How will our stance now be seen on the Iranian street? What will the pressures be on the Iranian Government when we make our holier-than-thou arguments about chemical warfare now?

I do not have time to conclude the arguments that I want to put. I will make one last point. Putin has said that the reason he provided anti-aircraft missiles to the Syrians was, in his words, to balance the war and prevent external intervention. What will his response be if we attack Syria? His response will be to feed this war more weapons, more deaths—

[Mr Speaker]

I call George Galloway.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Reports are circulating that No. 10 has indicated that it cannot rule out a recall of Parliament again on Saturday or Sunday to debate this matter further. Have you received any information from the Government in relation to any such request? It would have implications for this evening’s debate.

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is no; the first I have heard of that has been from his lips. We shall leave the matter there for now. He has put his point on the record.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am afraid that in the past hour and a half there have been only 11 Back-Bench contributions, as everybody has taken his or her full time and interventions. The consequence is that a lot of people want to speak but there is little time for them to do so. The limit is reduced to three minutes with immediate effect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I said that we were in a short-term hurry, albeit that it has taken us a long time to get here.

Some 100,000 people have been killed and more than 1 million displaced because of the other terrible actions by the Syrian regime and opposition forces, and 350 were killed by the chemical attacks and many more injured. Whatever the method of earlier killings, it is not possible to avoid the conclusion that military action to deal with chemical weapons could well lead to action to consolidate that military gain and then escalate to other action. In the light of the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures, the public suspect mission creep, to use that hideous expression. It is only because of the final words of the Government’s motion—

“before any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place”—

that I am prepared to vote with the Government this evening.

However, I am concerned that much of the anodyne and uncontroversial nature of the motion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) said, is an attempt to suck us into a particular position irrespective of the merits of it and the evidence on the ground. I am also concerned that there is a distinction between the third paragraph of the motion, which requires

“military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons”,

and the 10th, which refers simply to “deterring” it. I urge the Government to listen hard to what has been said tonight, and not to—

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I can be unequivocal and unambiguous; yes. The motion is very clear on this point. There will be no decision taken on any military participation on the part of the UK without a separate debate and a separate vote. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is a rather disorderly atmosphere now in the House. I want to hear the Deputy Prime Minister and I feel reasonably confident that he wants to hear himself.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

On the issue of legitimacy, as the motion stipulates, we are of course committed to a proper UN process in which we hear at the earliest possible opportunity from the weapons inspectors and, of course, where the matter is brought to the Security Council.

--- Later in debate ---

[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr MacNeil, you are like an erupting volcano. Calm yourself, man!

[Edward Miliband]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There having been no motion passed by this House tonight, will the Prime Minister confirm to the House that, given the will of the House that has been expressed tonight, he will not use the royal prerogative to order the UK to be part of military action before there has been another vote in the House of Commons?

[Mr Speaker]

That is of course not a matter for the Chair, but the Prime Minister has heard the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order, and he is welcome to respond.

[The Prime Minister]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I can give that assurance. Let me say that the House has not voted for either motion tonight. I strongly believe in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons, but I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons. It is very clear tonight that, while the House has not passed a motion, the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that, and the Government will act accordingly.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for that response.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not wish to detain the House for long, but I wish to raise a point of order on a separate matter from the one we have discussed this afternoon. While the eyes of the world have understandably been focused on the atrocities in Syria, I am saddened to say that the Government of Colombia have taken the opportunity to escalate the oppression, and even murder, of their own citizens. Huber Ballesteros, a prominent leader, has been imprisoned on trumped-up charges, and Juan Camilo Acosta has been shot dead for taking part in peaceful strike action. Have you, Mr Speaker, had any indication that Foreign Office Ministers intend to make a statement about the continued appalling murderous and oppressive situation in Colombia?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I have received no indication of any intention by a Minister to make a statement on the subject. However, the House is scheduled to return on Monday and, knowing what an assiduous and indefatigable Member the hon. Gentleman is, I feel sure that he will use all the opportunities open to him to highlight his concerns and those of a great many others on this extremely concerning and problematic issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

The UK and the Republic of Ireland do have many useful occasions to co-operate on European matters. The Republic of Ireland certainly has a different view from the UK Government on further integration, but on commercial matters—single market matters—we work well together.

[Mr Speaker]

May I gently say to the Secretary of State that cheeky ingenuity should be met by exemplary brevity? That is what she has provided, and we are grateful to her.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Given all her discussions with the various parties that she has to speak to, the Secretary of State will be aware of the perverse decision made last night by the Parades Commission, which has rewarded bad behaviour and punished good behaviour in relation to parading. What is she going to do about it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Villiers]

We are pressing ahead as soon as possible with our start-up loan system, which we hope will be in operation within weeks; we have already agreed—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman asked a serious question, and the Secretary of State is trying to answer, but there is far too much noise in the Chamber. Let us hear the right hon. Lady.

[Mrs Villiers]

The package includes top-ups for the Peace IV programme and structural funds; the retention of 100% assisted area status; a major G8 conference in October; measures to boost lending to business; a £20 million investment plan for research and development; agreement on the potential mechanism for taking forward further work on corporation tax devolution; a commitment to a new way forward on enterprise zones; a potential visa waiver pilot; and a number of other measures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is exceptionally discourteous. We have Question 1. The hon. Gentleman will ask the question; and that question, and the answer to it, will be heard.

[John Glen]

Today, the Government are setting out plans to modernise Royal Mail and to allow hard-working postmen and women to own 10% of the shares. Will the Prime Minister tell us what support he is expecting to see for this measure?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I am not surprised—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Prime Minister, I know, will want to answer the question put to him, and we must hear him do so.

[The Prime Minister]

I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has this sudden interest in party funding. Let us be frank: every donation to the Conservative party is fully set out and public. Let us be clear what this real scandal is about; it is about trade union fixing of political appointments to this House, so when he gets to his feet, let us hope he addresses the 40 seats that Unite has fiddled, and let us also hope he publishes the Falkirk report and tells us—[Hon. Members: “Answer the question!”] Labour Members do not want to hear—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am always concerned about the rights of Back-Bench Members, and they will be heard; and if we run over for the purpose, because of this sort of conduct, so be it. They will be heard. Please, let us have a bit of order and some answers.

[The Prime Minister]

The problem is, they’re paid to shout and they’re doing nothing about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

I will tell him what the difference is: 6p a week in affiliation fees from ordinary people up and down this country, against a party funded by a few millionaires at the top. And what is—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Ellis, you find it so difficult to control yourself. I am sure you did not when you were practising at the Bar. Calm it, man! Get a grip of the situation!

[Edward Miliband]

What is shameful about it is that the Prime Minister does not even know about the extra tax cut he gave to hedge funds. He says he wants reform, so I have a proposal for him. I am willing, as I have said before, to have a £5,000 limit on donations from trade unions, businesses and individuals, as part of a fundamental reform in the way our parties are funded. Is he willing to do that?

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, let me deal with—[Hon. Members: “Answer!”] I will answer. Let me deal with 6p a week—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have got to listen in order to hear.

[The Prime Minister]

Let me deal with 6p a week. Here are the figures since the right hon. Gentleman became leader: £8 million from Unite, £4 million from GMB and £4 million from Unison. They have bought the policies, they have bought the candidates and they bought the leader.

I have long supported caps on donations. I think we should have caps on donations, and they should apply to trade unions, to businesses and to individuals, but let me say this. There is a—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is still too far much shouting, on both sides of the Chamber. The Prime Minister I think is concluding his answer.

[The Prime Minister]

Let me be frank with the right hon. Gentleman. There is a problem with a £5,000 cap, and it is this. It would imply a massive amount of taxpayer support for political parties; and frankly, Mr Speaker, I do not see why the result of a trade union scandal should be every taxpayer in the country paying for Labour.

[Edward Miliband]

So there we have the truth—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[The Prime Minister]

I think that what matters is that everything is transparent and open. Those are the rules we agreed. The right hon. Gentleman made me an offer—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I said a moment ago that the Leader of the Opposition must be heard, and he must be. The Prime Minister must also be heard.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman made me an offer. Let me make him an offer. If he wants change, there is a Bill coming to the House of Commons next week that will cover trade unions. If he wants to legislate to move from opting out to opting in, if he wants to give union members a chance to choose whether to donate and to vote on whether they should give to Labour, we will legislate. Will he accept that offer of legislation? Yes or no?

[Edward Miliband]

I have to say that the right hon. Gentleman will have to do a lot better than that. He must answer the question on second jobs—[Interruption.] Let me tell him and all the Members opposite that between now and the general election, they will be subject to this test: do they support second jobs, new directorships and consultancies—yes or no? That is the test. Let us try the right hon. Gentleman with another test. I say—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The question must be heard, and the people whom I might have thought about calling to ask a question who are shouting from a sedentary position might just as well leave the Chamber.

[Edward Miliband]

As well as ending new directorships and consultancies, there should be a limit in the next Parliament on how much people can earn on top of their MP’s salary, as happens in other countries. The public would expect nothing less. What does the Prime Minister say?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

It is not the party of the people; it is the party of Len McCluskey. That is the fact—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We cannot just have a wall of noise. We need questions and answers.

[The Prime Minister]

It is not the party of the people; it is the party of Len McCluskey. They buy the candidates, they buy the policies and they buy the leader. What is Labour’s policy on Royal Mail? It is determined by the Communication Workers Union. What is its policy on health? It is determined by Unison. What is its policy on party funding? It is determined by Unite. It is no wonder that that the right hon. Gentleman thinks like Buddha: he wants to be reincarnated and come back as a proper leader.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Q2. Three quarters of a million British people suffer from heart failure, a condition—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. However long it takes, the question will be heard.

[Dr Huppert]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Three quarters of a million British people suffer from heart failure, a condition that uses 1 million hospital beds every year. Recent research funded by the British Heart Foundation has found that even low levels of air pollution can significantly increase the risk. Will the Prime Minister commit to meeting European standards on air quality? If implemented, such a commitment could increase life expectancy by up to eight months.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Employment in construction is currently rising, and the recent news on construction has been very good. That is because we have an infrastructure plan, a fifth of the projects are under way and we have road building at far higher levels than it ever was under the Labour Government. Whereas Labour electrified literally five miles of railway line, we are going to electrify hundreds of miles of railway line. I note that the hon. Gentleman does not mention the fact that he has been paying rent to Unite in his constituency. Normally, it is money from Unite to Labour; in this case, it is from—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call Mr Rees-Mogg.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Let me just give the hon. Gentleman the figures: £8 million from Unite; £4 million from GMB; and £4 million from Unison. The difference is this. Those donations—they buy your leader, they buy your policy, they buy—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call Jonathan Lord.

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Lord’s question must be heard.

[Jonathan Lord]

Q10. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that it is welcome that 2,500 out-of-work households in London can no longer claim more than the average working family earns—a welfare reform opposed by the Labour party at the behest of its union barons?

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

Can the Prime Minister tell—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Basic manners would suggest that the question be heard. Just as I said about Mr Lord, so, too, I say that Cathy Jamieson will be heard.

[Cathy Jamieson]

Q11. Perhaps the Prime Minister can tell the House whether Mr Aidan Heavey’s donations to the Conservative party had any influence on the Foreign Secretary’s intervention in his company’s tax dispute?

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am sure that all Members from all parts of the House will agree that it is important that we give young people more opportunities to get into work. That is why we have massively expanded the number of apprenticeships that are available to young people, on a scale that dwarfs anything the previous Government had planned, and why we have made available £1 billion for the Youth Contract. I urge the hon. Lady, if she has not done so—[Interruption.] She says that it is not working. It offers funding for 250,000 new work experience places, which is a great way of getting young people into work. If she worked with us, she could explain to employers in her constituency that wage subsidies are available under the Youth Contract so that if a local employer takes on a young person, they get paid for doing so by the Government.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Members need to be much briefer if we are to get through the questions.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

T2. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on the development of single pot funds and on what that will mean for east Kent in respect of the access to devolved money?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have been saving up: I call Mr Barry Sheerman.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister will share my concern about young people not voting. If so, why, as a member of the coalition Government, is he standing by as citizenship training disappears from our schools up and down the country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry to disappoint colleagues but we really must now move on.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

No, I do not. It is clear that there have to be reductions in legal aid spend, and a consultation is ongoing. Recently, my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary made it clear that, having listened to representations, he believed that choice is important both to clients and to solicitors, and choice will be incorporated in the final proposals. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There are some very noisy private conversations taking place in the Chamber. Let us hear Mr Chris Ruane.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

The legal aid cuts in my constituency will affect many of my constituents, who will also be affected by the closure of the Rhyl family court, the closure of the Rhyl Army recruitment centre, the closure of the Rhyl tax office and, on top of all that, the closure of the Crown post office. How will that help the regeneration of Rhyl?

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

I am speaking for parents up and down this country—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is the usual, very low-grade, very substandard, very unnecessary heckling. If the session has to run longer, it has to run longer. Let us try to observe some decorum, which the public can respect.

[Edward Miliband]

Let us have a debate about ethics. This is a Prime Minister who had dinners for donors in Downing street. He gave a tax cut to his Christmas card list, and he brought Andy Coulson into the heart of Downing street. The idea that he is lecturing us about ethics takes double standards to a whole new level.

In this one policy on schools we see the hallmark of this Government: they make the wrong choices on tax and spending. The millionaires’ tax cut, the top-down reorganisation of the NHS, and schools in areas where there are surplus places—and all the time they repeat the meaningless mantra, “We’re all in this together.”

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

What I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that we have to follow the correct legal processes. The legal advice, which we have shared with the Leader of the Opposition and his deputy, is that we have to take these things in order: we have to take the press’s royal charter proposal first, and then we have to bring forward the royal charter on which we have all agreed. I have to say that I think the press’s royal charter has some serious shortcomings, so, no, I have not changed my view.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Drax. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman wanted to be called and I have called him. He should be thanking me.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, very much indeed. I am most grateful to you.

Given that the selection of parliamentary candidates is a legitimate concern of this House, does the Prime Minister agree with me that the voting irregularities in the Falkirk constituency should be looked at as a matter of urgency?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The question is about a party matter. It is not a matter of Government responsibility, not a matter—[Interruption.] No, no: it is not a matter for the Prime Minister—complete waste of time.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The all-party group against human trafficking has raised the awareness of modern-day slavery to a great level. I am delighted to report that last night 158 hon. and right hon. Members of this House and the other House attended the annual general meeting. That is a credit to the Prime Minister’s personal commitment to this issue. Would he consider, perhaps in the next Queen’s Speech, having a modern slavery Act?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The point of having police and crime commissioners is to make sure there is proper accountability and that police constables have to account to a local person. That is why a number of former Labour Members of Parliament stood for the post. In some cases, such as that of John Prescott, the people of his region saw sense and rejected him.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before I call the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement, let me say that we need an orderly House, both because that is right in itself and because it will be of interest, in the light of the coverage of this matter, to discover whether he has anything to say in the House that we have not already heard outside. We look forward to it.

Afghanistan and EU Council

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Given that Ministers were originally proposing to have their names on the private Member’s Bill, it is probably as well that the Prime Minister was not seeking to explain the intricacies of parliamentary procedure to his European colleagues.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

I quite agree with the Prime Minister that the correct message to the Taliban is that stability is best achieved not through violence, but through negotiations. Further to questions from the Leader of the Opposition, will my right hon. Friend say what the prospects for the talks are? To what extent are regional players going to be involved, and will Pakistan be a part of that regional settlement?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I have been saving up the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) so that the House can savour him.

[Mr Hollobone]

My right hon. Friend will know that there are almost 11,000 foreign national offenders in our prisons, many from EU countries. There is an EU-wide compulsory prisoner transfer agreement, but only the United Kingdom and 12 other member states have ratified it. If it was not discussed at this EU Council, will the Prime Minister use his best endeavours to ensue that it is on the agenda for the next EU Council, ahead of the removal of transitional immigration controls from new entrant countries?

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the problem with the last Government’s legacy is you left a massive debt burden and a massive deficit, and this Government have had to take action to deal with it. As I said, the best way to get—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I did not leave any debt burden. We will concentrate on the policies of the Government. Nothing further requires to be said, so we shall move on. I call Mr Graham Brady.

[Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)]

Q6. Whatever the long-term benefits of the high-speed rail project, it is already causing serious worry for tens of thousands of home owners along the route. Will my right hon. Friend give urgent attention and consideration to the possibility of introducing a property bond, to remove that blight?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I will study my hon. Friend’s Bill closely. It is not the Bill that everybody might expect—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let us hear a bit more about Mr Cash’s Bill—I think the Prime Minister is going to tell us.

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly study my hon. Friend’s Bill. It is not necessarily the Bill we would all expect him to produce, but it sounds like an absolutely excellent idea. In co-chairing the high-level panel at the UN about the future of development, I wanted to make sure that gender equality was put right up there in the replacement for the millennium development goals, and it is there. I think his Bill might be able to provide some extra ideas for how to bring this to life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

G8

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The moment has arrived for the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), who need no longer look downcast in any way.

[Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. All my colleagues thought that I was going to be left out. When I used to read double tax treaties, they were written in a bygone age and mentioned quarrying, forestry and the signatory powers of overseas agents. Will the Prime Minister use Britain’s position in the OECD to ensure that those treaties are brought up to date, particularly in regard to e-commerce, where so much international tax avoidance is done?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Chair is minded to take all remaining colleagues on these extremely important matters. The Prime Minister is helpfully providing pithy replies, which of course now need to be matched with comparably pithy questions.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on the progress made at the G8 and on his commitment today to come to the House before taking major action on Syria. Will he confirm that that would include an opportunity for the House to vote before any arms were sent to Syria?

Bilderberg Conference

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

The Bilderberg meeting does not make any decisions. It does not have any resolutions. We could not possibly reach decisions, because of the range of opinions represented there. It is purely a Chatham House rules discussion between the people to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred. The shadow Chancellor was there, Peter Mandelson was there, the Prime Minister was there, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was there, and most of us said things during the discussion that would not have come as a surprise to any of us, because we knew what our opinions were. We go there for the chance of having an off-the-record, informal discussion with the range of people described by the right hon. Gentleman, who are indeed distinguished, but who are not remotely interested in getting together to decide or organise anything.

If the right hon. Gentleman would like an invitation—if that is what really lies behind his question—I will take his own distinguished claims to participation in the group carefully into account, although I will of course consult the shadow Chancellor before taking that a step further.

Let me say with the greatest respect that this is total, utter nonsense. I would normally regard the right hon. Gentleman as not the sort of person to be taken in by this sort of rubbish. We all take part in lots of political and other discussions as private individuals, under Chatham House rules, and we do not expect everyone to go out giving a version of what we have just said. No one alters their opinions when we are there. As for transparency, this Government are by a street the most transparent Government I have ever been in, but we can only be transparent in regard to things for which the Government have responsibility, and for what we are doing as a Government.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Minister without Portfolio said, rather prosaically I thought, that Peter Mandelson was there. I assume he was referring to no less a figure than Lord Mandelson of Foy. I think that is the person he had in mind.

[Mr Clarke]

No, we all attend extremely informally; we are not there in any capacity.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Minister can resume his seat. No one in the House has a better sense of humour than the Minister, but I thought that he realised that I was gently teasing him.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Is it not rather cruel to oblige the Prime Minister to spend a weekend with Lord Mandelson of Foy and the shadow Chancellor? Did anyone at the Bilderberg conference go away any the wiser as to how the Labour party, if it were to win the next general election, would square the circle and manage to tackle the deficit?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

Every year, about half those participating have never been before. Quite a lot of people come only for one meeting. The number of people who come every year is comparatively small—there is a kind of core and for some extraordinary reason I have been a part of that core over the past decade. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) made a most distinguished contribution but he should not be disappointed that he was not invited again. The British committee was trying to bring in a rising star of a younger generation, because we do not want the whole thing to become an ageing establishment of people who used to be something important in government. I have no doubt that one day my hon. Friend will be implored to attend again, but I cannot guarantee when that will be.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Dennis Skinner.

[Hon. Members]

Have you been there, Dennis?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

The other members at the moment are John Kerr and Marcus Agius, and I do not know who my successor will be. We are slightly overrepresented on the steering committee, which is probably a reflection of the quality of debate in this place and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think the matters have been fairly fully explored.