Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill (Money) (No. 2)

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman is giving way. I think he has completed his speech. Is that so? I am correct.

Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

Friday 11th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

This is obviously my hon. Friend’s Bill. She is not proposing any such legislation. She is merely proposing to clarify the territorial extent of any Bill that goes through the House. For my own part, in direct answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, I think that it is unfair to you, as a Welsh Member representing Welsh interests, voting on English-only interests, or indeed being a Minister for English-only interests. That is my personal opinion and I would not like you to attribute that to my hon. Friend whose Bill this is. She is not making that proposal.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I gently point out that I have been accused of many things but not of being a Welsh Member?

[Chris Bryant]

Although I am sure that you would not mind, Mr Speaker. It is not a libel. It is not like being called an English Member when you are not an English Member. [Hon. Members: “Oh.”] We lost badly in the rugby last week so we are still somewhat wounded on these matters.

I recognise that the hon. Member for West Worcestershire has dressed her Bill up so that it does not look like it is moving in that direction, but many Members might only support the Bill because they want it to move in that direction. As I said earlier, I understand that some people are concerned about the issue in the country. However, I cannot think of a single Parliament in the world, including Spain and many other countries—this is not the only argument that I would use in relation to this—where there is asymmetric devolution and MPs cannot vote on every piece of legislation that is brought before them. As the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington said, to go down that route is a nationalist argument—not as in British nationalist, but as in Welsh, Scottish or Irish nationalist—and will unpick the Union in the end. Therefore, if the hon. Member for West Worcestershire really believes in the Union, it is a bit difficult to advance that argument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that you have been in the Chair since the business of the House started this morning so you may not be aware that the High Court has just ruled in favour of the six local authorities who took the Secretary of State for Education to court over his Building Schools for the Future announcement. You will be aware, Mr Speaker, of the extent of the feeling on both sides of the House about this decision, and you will also appreciate the grave implications it will have for the policy of the Department for Education. It also calls into question the competence of the Secretary of State. Mr Speaker, have you received any notification that the Secretary of State will come to the House and explain the botched decision he made and say how he will move forward to make sure capital programmes for schools, including in my own constituency, will now be reinstated?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I have received no indication from any Minister at the Department for Education of an intention or desire to make a statement in the House today. It would, of course, be open to a Minister to do so however, and the hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record. It will have been heard by Members sitting on the Treasury Bench, including the Leader of the House, and I am sure there will be other opportunities fully to explore these matters in the days and weeks ahead.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the significant financial implications of this decision, have you had any indication from a member of the Treasury ministerial team that they will come to address the House today on the matter?

[Mr Speaker]

No.

[Iain Stewart]

I was about to give an example of why it is still extremely valid to address the West Lothian question. Last May’s general election did not produce a parliamentary majority for any one party, but it did produce a majority in England for the Conservative party; the Conservatives won a clear overall majority of the seats in England. I accept that no party commanded an overall majority so we had to proceed to a coalition Government, but an alternative coalition to the current one could have been found, such as the “rainbow option” of Labour Members, Liberal Democrats, nationalists, Ulster Members and independents. In that case, the people of England who had voted clearly for a Conservative Government would have been denied that Government, and we would, I think, have entered uncharted constitutional waters. I think there would have been a strong uprising in England on the basis that the will of the English voters had been thwarted. That situation did not arise, but it could have, so this is a very live issue.

A similar situation may arise in this Parliament over a vote to reverse the ban on hunting. That ban applies only to England and Wales from a vote in this House, because the matter is devolved entirely to the Scottish Parliament. Let us suppose there was a clear majority among English and Welsh Members to reverse that ban, but in the House as a whole, with the addition of Scottish Members, there was a wish to keep the law as it is. Why should Scottish Members be able to influence the decision in England or in England and Wales? That situation could arise and, although it might not be the most dominant issue in our postbags, we have to provide for that eventuality.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I agree with the hon. Lady about the disgusting nature of those terrorists: booby-trapping a child’s bicycle is absolutely revolting. I know that her strong belief is that the regime should be changed, but at this moment it would be crazy to move the furniture around. Let me make it very clear that Lord Carlile, who conducted an independent review of the matter, said that MI5 and the Police Service of Northern Ireland are working very closely together, and that we could not do more work, or do it more energetically, to deal with what is a very difficult threat. I am afraid that we just have to disagree on this matter, but I do agree that we have to do everything that we can to bear down—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am immensely grateful to the Secretary of State, but we must move on.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

Although PSNI funding is rightly the responsibility of the devolved Administration, will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that, in the event that dissident activity becomes much stronger, resources may be made available from the UK Government?

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

It would be churlish of me to let this occasion pass without congratulating the right hon. Gentleman, the Minister of State, on his elevation to the Privy Council, and I do so with pleasure.

It would be negligent of me—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that there is real pressure on time, so let us get on with the question.

[Stephen Pound]

It would be negligent of me, Mr Speaker, not to remind the Secretary of State that the request for additional funding has been with the Treasury since last year—for months. The signal that we send to dissident terrorists is the most important thing here. Will the Secretary of State fight for Ulster, fight against the dissidents and fight with the Treasury to get this money, which the PSNI needs now?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Swire]

In a word, yes. My hon. Friend will have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say that he has now met the new chief of the Garda Siochana, Martin Callinan. We continue to work very closely with the Garda, which has had some very lucky finds and some finds as a result of its hard work and co-operation with the PSNI. We applaud the work—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are very grateful.

[John Woodcock]

The Minister has made it clear that he is in negotiation with the Treasury over the extra funds needed to tackle dissident groups. Can he say at this stage whether he agrees with the assessment of the Chief Constable that this money is required?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Swire]

The threat in Northern Ireland is extremely serious. The majority of people in Northern Ireland are against the residual terrorist groups, which have no support in the community and are disrupting businesses. In the case of the Antrim road incident, they put about 100 people out of their houses on one of the coldest nights of the year. We continue to work extremely closely with the PSNI. The PSNI works with the Garda in the Republic of Ireland to bear down on these terrorists. We are certain that we can do that and drive them out. They have no place in modern Northern Ireland—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I thank the Minister for his answer.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Intelligence agencies tell us that a republican group in County Tyrone is planning to announce its appearance with a bombing wave in Northern Ireland. One hundred members of the Provisional IRA have seemingly pledged their allegiance to this new group. Can the Minister assure the House that any republican prisoner released under the Belfast agreement who becomes a member of this group will immediately be returned to prison?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Swire]

The right hon. Gentleman asks that question 15 years to the day since the Canary Wharf bombing, which heralded the end of the IRA ceasefire. It is therefore a timely question on a date that we all remember. Of course, there is a threat here from Northern Ireland-related terrorism. That is why, for the first time ever, the Home Secretary raised the threat level. I assure hon. Members that all services are working closely together to ensure that any attempt to disrupt the Olympics or any other occasion of national importance in the coming months or years—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are grateful to the Minister.

[Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)]

5. What recent discussions he has had with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive on economic development in Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that Northern Ireland urgently needs meaningful action on creating economic opportunity? Has there been any discussion about how we might create the authority for the Northern Ireland Executive to create bonds, thereby creating private funding to boost our construction industry and build the necessary schools and infrastructure that are missing?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. [Hon. Members: “Hear! Hear!”] Agreement is one thing; abiding by it is another. Ministers cannot even hear what is being asked. A bit of order please.

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. We will have a consultation period once the paper is published. He made an interesting suggestion, which the Chancellor will have heard. I hope that he will put it through formally in the consultation process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Williams]

I know that the whole House will want to join the Prime Minister in his expression of sympathy for the recent loss of life in Afghanistan. Training establishments in my constituency, such as the Sennybridge ranges and the infantry battle school, have built up very good relationships between the community and the military, which are ongoing and strengthening.

UK universities have a worldwide reputation for teaching and research. Many foreign students wish to attend those universities, and they are important not least because of the £5 billion that they contribute to the national economy. Many universities are very concerned that Government proposals—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A short, sharp question, please.

[Roger Williams]

Can the Prime Minister give an assurance to the universities that any proposals will not discourage the recruitment of genuine students?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me just say this: Labour put money into the banks; we are taking money out of the banks and putting it into the big society.

The right hon. Gentleman asks specifically about Sure Start and the Daycare Trust. I must say that, not for the first time, he has not done his homework, because the chief executive of the Daycare Trust, Anand Shukla, said:

“The Government has allocated sufficient funding for the existing network of Sure Start Children’s Centres to be maintained”—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. These exchanges are excessively rowdy—[Interruption.] Order. Again, I must ask Members on both sides to consider what the public think of this sort of behaviour. The Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Order. Questions will be heard, and the answers from the Prime Minister will be heard.

[The Prime Minister]

I look forward to the answer to this one. We have maintained the money for Sure Start and the money for children’s centres, and the head of the Daycare Trust backs our view rather than the right hon. Gentleman’s.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I have to say to my hon. Friend that we have not had thresholds in previous referendums, but I do not think that he should be so down on this. I am sure—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Prime Minister’s answer must be heard. All this noise is—[Interruption.] Order. All this noise is damaging colleagues’ chance of getting in.

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure that my hon. Friend will work with me to get the turnout up, particularly for the no vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I remember a time when the hon. Gentleman used to write the last Prime Minister’s questions. Given what he has said, I think that the last Prime Minister is writing his questions. The fact is that Labour left us the most indebted households, the most bust banks, and a deficit—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Prime Minister’s answer will be heard, and with some courtesy. That is what the public want to see. They are sick to death of this sort of behaviour.

[The Prime Minister]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me just make one point. The person who was the City Minister when the City blew up is now your shadow Chancellor. Great pick.

EU Council and North Africa

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just because three of the most glittering stars in the parliamentary sky have asked very full questions, that does not, in any way, oblige right hon. and hon. Members to follow suit. On the whole, I would rather that they did not.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

Is it not true that the national citizen service requires that the voluntary sector has adequate capacity to deliver additional volunteering, which is contrary to the unequivocal statement made at the last Cabinet Office questions by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), that the sector would expand? Will the Minister now admit that that statement was untrue. The latest figures for the voluntary sector show a decline of 13,000 jobs in a single quarter. Does he agree that the House was misled and that the statement—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman meant to say “inadvertently misled”.

[Jon Trickett]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The House was inadvertently misled, even though the facts show what actually happened. Finally, would the Minister say that the job losses are a clear disaster for his big society aspirations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Letwin]

I am glad that my hon. Friend asks that extremely interesting and important question. Of course, there has to be legislation about some things, but legislation has strict limits. The Opposition should be well aware of that, as they wasted £1.1 billion on ID card legislation—a totally ineffective example of authoritarianism. They also proposed to engage in bin taxes, and the evidence is now very clear: those measures would have increased fly-tipping and burning at home and have had counter-productive effects. The comparison with the RecycleBank initiative that Windsor and Maidenhead council and others are taking up, which nudges people into successfully recycling, is very striking. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that we can do—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just very gently say to the right hon. Gentleman, whose mellifluous tones I always enjoy—

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Nudge him!

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, I shall try to nudge him. What we want is an answer, not an essay.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Has the insight team considered an independent think tank’s judgment that the Government’s health reforms are like trying to resuscitate a corpse, which has not been done successfully since the time of Lazarus? How will the Government’s reforms help the nation when they are imposing chaos on the health service?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Maude]

There is no question mark at all over the continued existence of S4C, which plays a valuable part in the life of the Principality. I will convey my hon. Friend’s concerns to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. However, S4C appears in the Public Bodies Bill in the schedule to do with funding arrangements, and that has nothing to do with its continued existence. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There are far too many private conversations taking place in the Chamber, and far too much noise.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

8. What assessment he has made of the likely effects on the social enterprise sector of reductions in Government expenditure.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

We want waiting times and waiting lists to come down. [Interruption.] The whole aim of these NHS reforms is to make sure we get the value for the money we put in. [Interruption.] I have to ask the right hon. Gentleman this: it is clear now that Labour—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the Prime Minister. A 10-year-old constituent of mine came to observe Prime Minister’s questions last week, and asked me afterwards, “Why do so many people shout their heads off?” It is rude and it should not happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We now have a statement. I ask right hon. and hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, so that we can hear the Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman keeps saying “Split the Bill” from a sedentary position. We believe it is right to proceed together on reforming—[Interruption.] No—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the Deputy Prime Minister. Let me say to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and other Members that it is not too much for the Chair to ask that Members treat the Deputy Prime Minister with courtesy, whatever they think of him or his policies.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I find it extraordinary that, as I said, just a few days ago the leader of the Labour party said that he believed in new politics, but he is now using the oldest tricks in the book in the other place simply to stop the British people having their say. That is the worst kind of old politics I can imagine.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I heard the same predictions before the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election—that we would disappear without trace into complete oblivion—but our share of the vote went up. Honestly, the utter—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I wish to hear the Deputy Prime Minister. I would happily hear him for longer if there were more time, but there is not.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 5—Expiry and revival of section 2—

‘(1) Section 2 expires when the Parliament summoned to meet in May 2010 dissolves.

(2) In the course of the first month of the day of first meeting of any Parliament after the expiry of section 2 as a result of subsection (1) above, the Minister may by order bring the section back into force for the remainder of that Parliament.

(3) An order made under subsection (2) above is to be made by statutory instrument and shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.

(4) If no order has been made under subsection (2) above, an early parliamentary general election is to take place only if the House has passed a motion that there should be an early parliamentary general election.

(5) The polling day for an early parliamentary general election under subsection (4) above is to be the day appointed by Her Majesty by proclamation on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.

(6) If a polling day is appointed under subsection (5) above, the reference in section 1(4) to the polling day for a parliamentary general election appointed under section 2(6) shall be construed as if referring to a day appointed under subsection (5) above.’.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

May I begin by thanking the Minister for the enormous courtesy, good manners and good temper with which he has responded to the many criticisms of the Bill? I, among others, do not think it the best Bill ever to have come before Parliament, but he has invariably answered questions kindly. I also thank the Clerks for warning me that I was, in their terminology, to “open the batting” in this debate, which I might not otherwise have known. As far as cricketing metaphors go, I am probably more of a night watchman than a Geoffrey Boycott, or Somerset’s own Trescothick, but I shall bat on with regard to the Parliament Act 1911 and my new clause in relation to it.

The 1911 Act, as the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) reminded us earlier today, was introduced, broadly, as a temporary measure. The preamble to the Act says:

“whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation”,

but “immediately” has now extended to 100 years of failure to introduce a popular rather than an hereditary form, although not all elements of heredity remain in the upper House. The 1911 Act still allows the House of Commons to get through major constitutional reforms that the House of Lords may oppose.

The reason for introducing my new clause to exempt purely the first section of the Bill—the bit that limits the life of a Parliament specifically to five years, rather than continuing with the flexibility that we have previously had—is that this is a crucial constitutional development that we should be careful about changing, willy-nilly, as coalitions come and go. Our constitution should be safeguarded and preserved; it is not something that should be treated lightly or in an airy-fairy fashion—and one thing that the House of Lords can do, and does extraordinarily well, is prevent that from happening.

By the way, it is notable that their lordships sat throughout last night, fulfilling their proper constitutional role of ensuring that a serious constitutional change is properly debated and reviewed. We in this House find that guillotines come crashing down upon our necks to prevent the detailed deliberation that some of us might like over a rapid raft of changes to the constitution, but their lordships—some of whom are not in their first youth—have stayed up overnight, battling for the great British constitution, which has served us extraordinarily well for hundreds of years. Looking upon their lordships as the guardians of the constitution is a good reason for ensuring that the measure cannot be changed without their consent and approval.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The simple reason why I am speaking to my amendment is that, as I indicated on Second Reading, I take the gravest exception to the Bill, for a variety of reasons.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am loth to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, to whom I look forward to listening, but just for clarification, as I think he knows, we are not debating an amendment; we are debating a group of two new clauses. It is to the new clauses that he is speaking.

[Mr Cash]

Yes, indeed. I am seeking to amend the Bill through a new clause, and I am grateful to you for making that subtle distinction, Mr Speaker.

The point is that the title of the Bill is a give-away. It refers to “Parliaments”; it does not refer to “Parliament”. Therefore, there is an underlying assumption that the process in question—which is inevitably tied up with the concept of the coalition politics, which are increasingly regarded as a perpetual burden that we will be expected to comply with—is inherent in the arrangements for the proposals in the Bill. The use of the word “Parliaments”, in the plural, simply emphasises that.

As one who believes firmly in the idea that our constitutional arrangements have stood us in good stead for a long time, but without being obtuse about the need for reform, I would say that there are changes in our constitutional arrangements that, periodically, can be justified. However, my proposal is, effectively, a “stop and restart” provision. That is, if there is any merit in continuing the arrangements, if they were to survive for as long as the period allocated by the leaders of the parties and the coalition agreement, then there is always the possibility—to put it no higher than that—of referring to some of those outside this place who, as far as I am concerned, are the most important people of all, namely our electors, and not leaders of parties or parties themselves. The real question is: what do the public think about all this? Of course, they have not been asked; indeed, there is not the slightest intention that they should be asked.

What I am suggesting is that the very concept of a fixed-term Parliaments Bill is offensive to the hallowed principle—that simple constitutional proposition—that no Parliament can bind its successors. I have therefore decided—I am glad to be joined by a number of other hon. Members in this notion—that we should have what we describe in the title of new clause 5, namely the “Expiry and revival of section 2”. I happen to hope that such a revival does not take place, and I shall explain why. “Expiry”, certainly; however, as I was very sensibly advised, because of the scope of the Bill and its background, rather than proposing what I would otherwise have put forward, namely a sunset clause—or, as I think it would be better described, a “cast into the darkness of hell” clause—I have proposed that clause 2 be required to expire when the Parliament summoned to meet in May 2010, on that fixed and prescriptive date, dissolves. You might have an interest in this, Mr Speaker, because, if anything were to happen, there might even be the need for the re-election of a Speaker. In such rare circumstances, you might take a particular interest in this provision. I am suggesting that clause 2 should expire in those circumstances.

It is important to bear in mind the provisions in clause 2. We have moved on from the Committee stage to Report, and I remind the House that I tabled amendments to clause 2 in Committee because I took the gravest exception to certain elements in it. I am therefore anxious that it should expire, because I do not believe that it is a constitutionally satisfactory provision. Clause 2(1) states:

“An early parliamentary general election is to take place if the Speaker of the House of Commons issues a certificate—

(a) certifying that the House has passed a motion that there should be an early parliamentary general election,

(b) certifying whether or not the motion was passed on a division”—

I do not think that there would be much difficulty in demonstrating that. The clause continues:

(c) if it is certified that the motion was passed on a division, certifying that the number of members who voted in favour of the motion was a number equal to or greater than two thirds of the number of seats in the House (including vacant seats).”

I have no intention of going back to the discussions that we had on the clause. I tabled amendments to it and argued my case fairly, I thought, but the Whips got in the way—I do not know the reason—and the result was that I lost my Division. If I may say so without presumption, I do not believe that I lost the argument, but hon. Members on both sides of the House, particularly Back Benchers, are prone to believe our own arguments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that fixing the term at five years automatically favours the Government of the day, whereas it can of course have the opposite effect. Does he agree with me, as did some of the witnesses who appeared before our Committee, that by tying themselves into a five-year fixed term, the Government might find that the election coincides with a rather dismal period in the opinion polls, giving great advantage to the Opposition? I thought that that evidence was given to the Select Committee—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but his intervention is getting rather long.

[Tristram Hunt]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but the benefits of a fixed-term schedule outweigh those potential risks. I regard four years as within the rhythm of this country, as it is within the rhythm of other European as well as Westminster-style democracies— Canada, Denmark, the American presidential term, Germany, Sweden. The change to five years is for the good of the coalition, not the nation.

The Deputy Prime Minister referred to and quoted the Chartists again in today’s Question Time, but the Chartists believed in annual Parliaments, not in extending the term to five years. As we have heard, the Liberal Democrats used to believe in four-year terms—before the allure of office moved them to change their minds. May I suggest that the coalition listen to a real coalition leader, the late Herbert Asquith? On introducing his own cut to the parliamentary term, he spoke of securing a House of Commons that is

“always either fresh from the polls which it gave it authority, or—and this is an equally effective check upon acting in defiance of the popular will—it is looking forward to the polls at which it will have to render an account of its stewardship.”—[Official Report, 21 February 1911; Vol. XXI, c. 1749.]

That seems to be the perfect combination. I will move on quickly, as others wish to speak.

I do not feel that the Government have dealt with the problem of exclusive cognisance very effectively, so it still poses the danger of judicial interference. This Bill fits all too neatly into the Government’s overarching constitutional reform strategy: coalition first, country second. Whether it be packing the House of Lords, increasing the number of Ministers by 10%, undermining the Union by slashing 25% of constituencies in Wales, or overriding historic or geographic settlements in new parliamentary boundaries, it is Clegg and Cameron first, country second. That is the abiding weakness of coalition Government. The tragedy is that if this Bill is passed, we will have five years of it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There are fewer than 14 minutes to go and four Members are seeking to catch my eye. Members can do the arithmetic for themselves, so some regard for each other’s interests would be appreciated.

European Council

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Although it is not my normal practice to call a Member who was not present at the very start of the statement, I note that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) chairs the European Scrutiny Committee and therefore, exceptionally, I shall call the hon. Gentleman on this occasion.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful, Mr Speaker. I really only came here to wish the Prime Minister a happy Christmas. Does the Prime Minister share the concern of many of us that the present financial mechanism is unlawful, and that Britain is exposed until 2013 while the black hole of Portugal and Spain opens up before us? Does he therefore think there are serious grounds for challenging the unlawfulness of it and not exposing the British electorate to the prospect of having to contribute to that while suffering such severe austerity cuts?

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)]

The coalition Government are sorting out the mess they inherited from the previous—[Interruption.] This always gets Opposition Members going from the beginning. The coalition Government are sorting out the mess they inherited from the previous Administration, including a woefully unreformed political system. That is why we are giving power back to Parliament by establishing five-year fixed-term Parliaments, why we are offering the public a choice, for the first time, on using a different and fairer electoral system, and why we will create fairer, more equal-sized constituencies in time for the next election.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Harriet Harman.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

rose—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

I beg the right hon. and learned Lady’s pardon, and I also beg Mr McCabe’s pardon as we have not yet heard from him and we want to do so. I call Mr Steve McCabe.

[Steve McCabe]

I feel so let down, Mr Speaker.

In her paper comparing the coalition to a difficult marriage, Miss van der Laan advises Back Benchers that they should

“never take advice from those who have secured Government jobs because their self-interest clouds their judgment.”

Is she right?

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

My question was for the Deputy Prime Minister. Am I permitted to ask it?

[Mr Speaker]

You have to ask the question of this Minister.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

Okay then. There was a failure to answer the question put by the deputy Leader of the Opposition. No doubt the—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This question must be about the electoral register: accuracy thereof.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware of the great efforts made this year by Glasgow city council to increase voter registration? For example, it has worked with minority groups and carried out targeted canvassing. All that work is going to show a big increase in the level of electoral registration tomorrow. Why are his Government not joining good local authorities such as that in Glasgow to get the 3.5 million people not on the electoral register on to the voters roll as soon as possible? Why are they instead rushing to have a boundary review that benefits the coalition?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

A year ago, the previous Government announced that they would require—[Interruption.] It is worth listening to this as a contrast between inaction and action. They announced that they would require the banks to sign up to the code of practice on taxation. Last month, only four of the top 15 banks had signed up, which was in our view completely unacceptable. We want the banks to play not just by the letter of tax law but by its spirit. That is why the Chancellor instructed Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in October to work with the banking sector to ensure that the remaining banks implemented the code by the end of this month, and I can today confirm that all the top 15 banks have now signed the code. That is an extra 11 banks in one month versus the four that signed previously. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. First, I want to hear the answers. Secondly, the greater the noise, the longer the delay and the fewer Back Benchers will have a chance to be called. That would be a great pity.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

T9. If the right hon. Gentleman had his time again, would he be for or against tuition fees?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I can tell the House what it is above and beyond everything else. It is a contrast with the big state. That was the governing ethos of the previous Government: every problem, every dilemma and every question, it was felt by the previous Government, should be sorted out by officials in Whitehall and politicians in Westminster. We believe—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman asked the Deputy Prime Minister a question. Members must have the courtesy to listen to the reply.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr Speaker, they are enjoying asking their questions so much that they are not bothering to listen to the answer.

We believe in empowering individuals, communities and families to be able to do what they think is right to improve their lives in the way they think is best.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about the use of church buildings. The cathedral and church buildings division of the archbishops’ council has been working for the last five years to help congregations do everything that they can to work with communities to identify how church buildings can be used creatively to serve the widest community use. We now see extended use of church buildings, including as post offices, shops, libraries, internet cafes, benefit advice centres and citizens advice centres. Wherever possible, we want to see churches as living buildings where as much community activity as possible takes place, and the Church Commissioners will always support such activity.

[Mr Speaker]

No one is more grateful for the end of that answer than the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous).

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

10. What steps the Church of England is taking to strengthen and support the marriages of people married in its churches.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman wants to be reassured that that will not be the case. We are grateful to him for so indicating—[Interruption.] Order. That is the end of it.

[Mr Hurd]

As my hon. Friend knows, there will be cases where large-scale contracts are more efficient, but we want to make sure that voluntary and community sector organisations do not feel excluded from them and are treated fairly by the prime contractors within any consortiums. The White Paper will address that issue. In addition, the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White), which the Government support, will place a firmer requirement on commissioners to consider social value in their buying decisions. That will help. I should be delighted to meet representatives of the local voluntary and community sector organisations in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley) and I extend the same offer to all hon. Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. For a start, there is too much noise in the Chamber. Secondly, the Minister is, no doubt because of his natural courtesy, looking back at the person by whom he has been questioned, but he must address the Chamber so we can all hear him.

[Damian Collins]

Will the Minister consider organising an event or exhibition at which small businesses could show what they can offer to Government procurement? Perhaps we could have a street fair in Downing street, and invite people out of their offices to come and see for themselves?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Letwin]

The greatest protection for small and medium-sized enterprises in the construction sector and elsewhere is, of course, a macro-economic framework that enables them to survive the recession, prosper and grow. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken the steps that have led the world in providing a solid macro-economic framework and low interest rates that enable—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I call Mr David Amess.

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

6. What estimate he has made of the change in his Department’s spending on consultancy between 2009-10 and 2010-11.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Maude]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s robust support for this Government’s change in direction from that taken by the Government of whom he was a member. We believe that the incontinent use of consultants is demeaning for civil servants, who would, in many cases, like to be doing this work and are very capable of doing it. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Far too many private conversations are taking place in the Chamber. This is very discourteous and it should end.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

7. What recent progress he has made on his proposals for reform of the civil service compensation scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

It will not surprise my hon. Friend to hear that I think he is wrong. Under the approach of a previous Government, we would have caved in when the European Parliament asked for a 6% budget increase. We have not, and we have fought that increase—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want to hear the Prime Minister’s views about the views of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), and I hope the House does.

[The Prime Minister]

Also, we will make sure that future bail-out mechanisms should not involve non-euro countries such as Britain having to make those contributions. That is something we will secure in Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Q7. The issue of workplace bullying is highlighted in an article in the New Statesman this week. It states: “Ed Miliband’s team are terrified of Ed Balls and Yvette. They think they’re going to…kill him…because they”—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat immediately. That question has got nothing whatsoever to do with Government policy.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Q8. If the Prime Minister is so keen to put a cap on immigration, why did he earlier state that he gave his 100% backing to Turkey joining the EU? Surely he knows that most immigration to Britain comes from the EU. Does he not think that there is a stench of hypocrisy about the Government’s immigration policy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call Secretary Michael Gove to make a statement.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. First, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that points of order come after the statement, and secondly, I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, so that we can hear the statement from Mr Secretary Gove.