Wilson Doctrine

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

The hon. Lady is quite right, but I specifically asked a parliamentary question about whether any Member who had taken the Oath of office had had their phone calls intercepted. Of course, I got a non-reply, because—I believe—it has happened.

President Nixon would have been pleased with the responses to the 27 written questions on this matter that have received answers. There are so many non-denial denials. Only a few days ago, I asked the Home Secretary again about this issue, and again we got an absolute non-denial. In that case, she said she was not allowed to give information about individual intercepts. I was not asking about an individual intercept; I was asking how many there had been. Why on earth is it wrong for this mother of Parliaments to know how many MPs have had their telephone calls intercepted in each year? They do not have to be identified; we just want to know how many.

This could be a huge cover-up that could ruin people’s careers. Home Secretary, you cannot keep dancing on the head of a pin. We need to know the truth. This is so vital. If you have not authorised the interception of any MPs’ telephone calls, why not leap to your feet now and tell me? What conclusion—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is normally the most fastidious adherent of parliamentary etiquette, but for the avoidance of doubt, he was not for one moment raising the prospect that I would have authorised any such interception. I would not dream of doing any such thing. The word “you”, which applies to the Chair, could usefully be replaced with the third person.

[Mr Bone]

Yes, indeed, Mr Speaker. Of course, I was asking if the Home Secretary wanted to leap to her feet. It was probably because she misunderstood me that she did not leap to her feet, so let me give her the opportunity again. If she has not authorised any such telephone intercepts, will she tell the House now? Okay, I think that that answers the question.

We now need to move on. I agree that we need to put the Wilson doctrine—

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I start by paying tribute to the many Members who have raised the issue of the Wilson doctrine over many years. There are many of them and it would be invidious to leave any out if I were to try to name them all, but I pay tribute in particular to the indefatigability of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), the hon. Members for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and, of course, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), whom I congratulate on securing this important emergency debate. There has been a strong sense of common cause here. Contributions from all parts of the House have been very much in accord on the kind of principle we want to see in the future, the fact that we are not putting ourselves above the law, and the fact that this is about securing the confidentiality of our constituents—whistleblowers and so on—and is not about making a special case for MPs per se.

The Cabinet Office response to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal ruling was that MPs’ communications were not “improperly intercepted” and that

“all activity has been within the law.”

That is true, but I suggest that it misses the point, which is that the activity that MPs have been repeatedly told was not possible because of the Wilson doctrine has in fact been taking place and constitutes a grave breach of our constituents’ privacy. MPs have been misled about the level of protection afforded by the Wilson doctrine and we need legislation that provides a proper framework for future decisions.

The Home Office has responded to the IPT judgment by reiterating that under RIPA the security agencies must apply for a section 8(1) warrant if they want to target a parliamentarian. This is also true, but it also misses the point. GCHQ and MI5 routinely undertake the generic and indiscriminate trawling of everyone’s data to garner what is called metadata. The Wilson doctrine does not prevent communication between MPs and their constituents, whistleblowers, campaigners or journalists from being captured in this kind of trawl. All it does is stop MPs’ names, for example, being used at the next stage of the process when the security services search that metadata. So they could not search for my name, or indeed the name of any other MP, but that does not prevent them from looking at communications highlighted by a search on another term that could still lead them in exactly the direction they wish to go.

As we now know, while the secret services have guidelines intended to enact the spirit of the Wilson doctrine when they make decisions about accessing analysed data gathered in this way, this is not legally enforceable. The IPT judgment refers to previously unpublished guidance issued to the security and intelligence services on the doctrine. The guidance states that, when considering a warrant application to which the Wilson doctrine would apply, the relevant Secretary of State must consult the Prime Minister, via the Cabinet Secretary. The guidance states, and the IPT agreed, that the doctrine only applies to the direct interception of parliamentarians’ communications under section 8(1) of RIPA, and not indirect or incidental interception under section 8(4) of RIPA. Therefore the guidance as quoted does not provide for a procedure to be followed in the event that an MP’s details came up in relation to a targeted search on something else.

Parliamentarians’ communications are not referenced in RIPA and the IPT judgment seems to assume that this means that the Act therefore overrides the Wilson doctrine. I was not a Member of the Parliament when RIPA was passed but many colleagues here today were and perhaps they, understandably, did not seek to amend the Act to refer to their communications because they believed they were already exempted thanks to Wilson.

The judgment casts serious doubt over repeated assurances from successive Governments that MPs are not being subjected to state surveillance or interception. At best, it appears that the Prime Minister, as recently as 11 September 2015, was unaware of the exact status of the doctrine and ignorant of its application. At worst, he may have been deliberately ambiguous in order to lull MPs into a false sense of security. In this I echo the words of the Government’s own lawyer, who described previous ministerial statements on the Wilson doctrine as

“ambiguity at best whether deliberate or otherwise”.

What is unambiguous is that any change in the doctrine’s scope should have been notified to Parliament, in terms, by the Prime Minister. If the Executive have instead unilaterally rescinded the doctrine without notifying Parliament, that represents what Liberty calls

“a significant, constitutional breach of trust between the Executive and sovereign Parliament to which it must answer”.

Consistent with the absence of any reference to parliamentarians’ communications in RIPA, the interception of communications code of practice, published in 2002, approved by Parliament and in force until earlier this year, is similarly silent on the subject. But its replacement, the draft interception of communications code of practice, published in February 2015, does refer to the potential for parliamentarians’ communications to be intercepted. It has not yet been put before or approved by Parliament, but this change of tack suggests a conscious change of policy and, again, it is unacceptable that MPs have not been properly informed—and, indeed, have actually been issued with ongoing reassurances that the Wilson doctrine protects them. The one exception to this was a comment made by the Home Secretary during the debate on the data retention and investigatory powers last summer, which other Members have already referenced, in which she said:

“Obviously, the Wilson doctrine applies to parliamentarians. It does not absolutely exclude the use of these powers against parliamentarians, but it sets certain requirements for those powers to be used in relation to a parliamentarian. It is not the case that parliamentarians are excluded and nobody else in the country is, but there is a certain set of rules and protocols that have to be met if there is a requirement to use any of these powers against a parliamentarian.—[Official Report, 15 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 713.]

Again, as other Members have said, if there has been a material change, as it appears there has been, it is incumbent on the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister to proactively advise Parliament and detail the implications for our constituents and our wider work. This is not about asking for special privileges for MPs; on the contrary.

I have also been campaigning for nobody to be subjected to mass surveillance. As Amnesty International puts it helpfully: surveillance of communications in any form—from the initial interception itself to access, and further use, whether of content or metadata—is an interference with a range of human rights. Those include the rights to privacy and freedom of expression.

To avoid that interference amounting to an actual violation of rights, it must be lawful, necessary and proportionate. UK law and practice around communications surveillance currently fails not only the lawfulness test, but the necessity and proportionality requirements for non-abusive interference with basic rights. In this instance, it is about members of the public having confidence that their communications with MPs are not being spied upon, and that they can expect representation without their privacy being compromised. It is about trust and about our ability to undertake legitimate parliamentary duties without the security services monitoring us.

I would suggest, as Amnesty has done, that the logical conclusion the Government should be reaching in the wake of the IPT’s judgment is that, in order for surveillance to be both human rights compliant and in line with the Wilson doctrine, those authorising warrants—who should be independent entities—should ensure it is properly targeted at where there is a reasonable suspicion. In other words, there should be no indiscriminate bulk surveillance of anyone’s communications data.

I, too, agree that MPs should not be above the law. If there are grounds to suspect an MP or citizen of any wrongdoing, of course it should be permissible to target their communications for surveillance and interception, provided due process is followed. That is proportionate and appropriate. But it is also quantifiably different from the kind of bulk interceptions to which citizens are routinely being subjected and from which MPs were given the impression that they were exempt.

I want to thank you, Mr Speaker, for your ongoing willingness to facilitate transparency and accountability in respect of the Wilson doctrine. Last week, in the wake of the IPT judgment on the case brought by myself and Baroness Jenny Jones, I was given the green light to ask two written parliamentary questions that would not have been permissible 24 hours earlier—namely, to ask the Prime Minister what information he holds about MPs having had their communications surveilled and further, to ask him whether the Wilson doctrine has been consistently applied to my communications or whether those communications have also been surveilled. I urge other MPs to ask those same questions, as our constituents and other correspondents have a right to know whether they have been spied on. We also need answers to the following questions. Did the Government realise that the Wilson doctrine was not legally enforceable in advance of this ruling? Will the Prime Minister now come clean about how many MPs and their constituents have been surveilled?

The impending publication of the investigatory powers Bill will offer a key opportunity to ensure that the protections supposedly afforded by the Wilson doctrine are indeed properly enshrined in law. I am pleased that the Home Secretary has indicated that she will look at including a principle of that kind in the Bill, but I would be grateful if she could be even clearer when she speaks again in the debate and if she confirmed—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I gently say to the hon. Lady that I am sure her error is an inadvertent one? I do not think that the Home Secretary intends to speak again in the debate tonight, although the shadow Leader of the House might do so if there is time. Of course the Home Secretary is perfectly welcome to do so if there is time, but I do not think she intends to do so. However, I will leave the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) to her own devices.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful for that clarification, Mr Speaker. I will therefore simply suggest that it would be helpful if the Home Secretary were to intervene on me to clarify that she will definitely include in that Bill the kind of principle that many of us have been describing tonight. I appreciate that she is still thinking about whether this should involve independent judicial approval, as I would suggest, a triple lock or some other mechanism. We would, however, like to hear a firm indication, as a result of this debate, that this issue will be properly addressed and that the hole that has been left as a result of the Wilson doctrine not being properly enforced will be filled by a measure in the new legislation.

All the Members who have spoken in the debate have agreed that this kind of legislation should extend to the devolved legislatures and Assemblies, and to the European Parliament. We do not yet live in a surveillance state, and MPs have a right to expect that their communications, and those of the individuals they have been democratically elected to represent, should not be routinely surveilled or intercepted.

Immigration Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want to accommodate two more Members. The wind-ups are due to start at 6.40 pm and we need to keep as close to that as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Is the Minister aware of the current case of Pastor James McConnell in Belfast, who is being prosecuted for a sermon he delivered in his church to his congregation, and does the Minister accept that, with all the best will in the world, it is ordinary, decent citizens who are fearful of stepping over a line who will be prosecuted and persecuted under the crime of hate speech, and not those paramilitaries and terrorists we need to focus on?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I listened intently to what the hon. Gentleman said and from the phraseology he used it seems that a prosecution is currently under way. If that is so, the sub judice rule applies and therefore a degree of caution in the ministerial response would be prudent.

[Karen Bradley]

Thank you, Mr Speaker; you took the words out of my mouth. I clearly cannot comment on that matter, but I do want to assure the hon. Gentleman that using religious texts as an excuse for hatred and as a reason to incite hatred is not acceptable and we will not stand for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

We will reform the scheme to ensure that the widows, widowers and civil partners of police officers who have died on duty do not have to choose between solitude and financial security. The Government will lay these regulations in the coming weeks and the change will be backdated until 1 April 2015.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Home Secretary has clearly brought great happiness to the right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), and that will be recorded in the Official Report. We are extremely grateful.

[James Cleverly]

I welcome the statement made by the Home Secretary, and I also welcomed the restatement in the Prime Minister’s conference speech of his commitment to end the brutal practice of female genital mutilation among British citizens and those living in Britain. What steps are being made by the Home Department to ensure that those commitments become reality?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As I intimated was likely at the start of Home Office questions, we have been notably deprived by the absence of that intellectual iconoclast, the Minister for Security, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), but we have pressed on as best we can, regardless of that deprivation.

[Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Points of order come after urgent questions, so the right hon. Gentleman has time for tea.

Migration

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before we proceed—I certainly did not want to interrupt the hon. and learned Lady, who is a most experienced advocate—I just want to say to the House that from now on and in conformity with usual practice, statements should be followed by questions rather than further statements. Of course, I partly have what the hon. and learned Lady said in mind, but not only what she said. It has become quite common in recent times for people to feel that they must follow a statement with another statement. This is not for speeches to the Press Gallery; it is for a series of questions following the statement. I hope that that is helpful. It is genuinely intended to be helpful.

[Mrs May]

The hon. and learned Lady invited me to comment on the Schengen borders and the decisions taken by a number of European Union member states who belong to the Schengen border-free zone. I would simply say that such decisions are matters for countries that are members of the Schengen zone. The United Kingdom is not a member of Schengen and will not be a member of Schengen.

The hon. and learned Lady referred to the public’s overwhelming generosity and various issues about how we are helping people. While she welcomed what we are doing, she said that we are not doing enough. I would say to her that the overwhelming generosity of the British people has been exemplified, first, by the fact that we have been willing as a Government to commit to 0.7% of GNP going to our aid budget, and secondly, by the fact that we are the second biggest bilateral donor to people in the region. The figures are striking. There is obviously a difference in terms of the support given and the sort of life and accommodation that people have, but I think these are the figures: with the money that would be spent on one individual coming to the UK, 20 people can be supported in-region. That is why we have always said that we can help more people by supporting them in the region, where, as I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), they are then able to go home when that becomes possible.

Finally, we have had significant interaction with the Scottish Government. I think that the Prime Minister spoke to the First Minister last week about this matter. We have also had interaction with the Welsh Government on it. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Refugees is due to meet the relevant Scottish Minister soon and to speak to the relevant Welsh Minister, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration spoke to his Scottish and Welsh contacts on this matter last week.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not wish to become overly discursive. I regard him as an exemplar in this place.

[Mr Bone]

I am sorry, but it was important.

[Mr Speaker]

It is important, as the hon. Gentleman rightly observes, and he has made his point with some eloquence.

[Mrs May]

I am always willing to consider suggestions about possible budgets to deal with these issues, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right about the gangs smuggling in refugees and illegal economic migrants. Of course, the business of some people smugglers is taking money from people and putting them on a boat that they know will probably sink in the Mediterranean, while others are human traffickers who want not just to put somebody on the journey but to ensure they are met when they arrive and are taken into some vile form of slavery. We constantly look at our effort on this, and I am pleased we have now confirmed in his place the independent anti-slavery commissioner, Kevin Hyland, who has been working with countries—in Africa, for example—looking at this terrible trade of human trafficking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Progress has been slow, and we are a bit short of time, but the last question was commendably pithy. If we can follow in that vein, it will help the House with later business.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Like others, I welcome today’s statement, but could the Home Secretary tell us a bit more about the criteria she will use to determine the proportions of settlers going to the various nations and regions of the UK?

Refugee Crisis in Europe

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Relevant document: E-petition entitled “Accept more asylum seekers and increase support for refugee migrants in the UK”, https://petition, parliament.uk/petitions/105991.]

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the shadow Home Secretary to open the debate, which will run for up to three hours, it might be for the convenience of the House to know that, according to my record, no fewer than 27 Members are seeking to catch my eye. I will not impose a time limit at this stage—that will depend on the length of the opening contributions—but for most of the speeches that will be necessary. Even when Members are not subject to the limit, it would be helpful if they could show some consideration for their colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I apologise to my right hon. Friend, I mean the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Yes, that was pre-May. It is only fair to those whose interventions I rejected that I continue to make progress.

The response to the situation has shown the great generosity of the British people. When there are humanitarian crises across the world, we see an enormous outpouring of generosity from the British people. We have seen local councils, companies, churches, community and faith groups and individual people offering their help. As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary and I will be leading the work to ensure that those generous offers can be turned into the practical assistance that the refugees need most.

If we are to deal with the situation, however, we need to overcome this challenge in the long term, and that is about finding an end to the conflict. The only lasting solution to the problem in Syria is a political settlement to the conflict—one that rids Syria of the murderous tyranny offered by Assad as well as the warped ideology and barbarism of the ISIL terrorists seeking to exploit the violence. The Prime Minister was clear yesterday in the House that there was a strong case for the UK’s taking part in airstrikes as part of the international coalition to target ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq. I hope that when the right hon. Lady winds up the debate, she will say what her position on that proposal would be if she were leader of the Labour party.

A stable Libya is also crucial to our efforts. A political settlement there will do more than anything else to help us stop people making the dangerous journey across the Mediterranean. We must support the creation of a credible national Government whom we can work with and who can work with us to secure the Libyan coastline and interior, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) indicated earlier, and we are working, unilaterally and through the EU, to ensure that our development work helps those source and transit countries from which people are fleeing not persecution but poverty. We need to make it easier for people to improve their livelihoods without making long and dangerous journeys or fuelling the people-trafficking gangs.

The extension of our existing schemes announced by the Prime Minister yesterday builds on the Government’s comprehensive approach to this unprecedented challenge: our largest ever humanitarian aid programme providing help directly in the region; protection for those who need it; stopping people making these dangerous journeys by breaking the link between illegal immigration and settlement in Europe; disrupting the criminal gangs and bolstering source and transit countries; and leading international efforts to end the conflict in Syria, to defeat ISIL and to give the refugees the most lasting help we can—the peace and stability of their normal lives.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House, Sir Gerald Kaufman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The debate must be conducted with some decorum. It has been good-humoured, but it is getting a little out of control, and that is deprecated by the Father of the House as well as by the Chair. I call Mr Doughty.

[Stephen Doughty]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is being very unhelpful by doing what many other Conservative Members are doing in constantly blurring the lines of definition between refugee, migrant, economic migrant and asylum seeker. The reality is that he is out of step with what the British public feel about this. People of all parties in my constituency are making it clear what they feel about the issue. This is a different situation, and the constant blurring of those definitions does not help.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, but in the light of the number of people seeking to contribute to the debate a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches must now apply.

Water Cannon

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I think that I should probably just say thank you and sit down.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Nick Herbert when he has finished consulting his mobile phone.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I know that the Home Secretary will have taken this decision with great care. I therefore regret to say that I, too, have grave concerns about it. Does it not directly contradict the statement of the Prime Minister during the London riots of 2011 that water cannon would not be taken off the table and that indeed they could be made available within 24 hours? The Home Secretary has not been directly responsible for policing in the capital for 15 years. The elected Mayor has responsibility in that regard and the senior operational commander in London has made it quite clear that he supports the use of water cannon. Surely a riot is a riot whether it is in Northern Ireland or on the streets of London and it is hard to see why it should be dealt with differently. Just this week, water cannon have been used in the Province.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I am very conscious of the poll that the Mayor of London, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Boris Johnson), undertook on the views of Londoners. I am also conscious that a number of views were expressed in 2011 by those who sadly found themselves living in parts of London that were affected. I reiterate my earlier point that people often assume that because what happened in 2011 were riots, water cannon would necessarily have been operable in every circumstance. In fact, they would not have been. There is evidence from the chief constables of West Midlands police and Merseyside police, where riots also took place in 2011, that water cannon would not have been the answer because of the nature of the riots taking place.

[Mr Speaker]

In talking about Uxbridge, we must not forget South Ruislip.

[Boris Johnson]

I am most grateful, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

It is a very important part of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s decision. It feels as though the Government are preparing for a number of confrontations. Is she confident that the police have the necessary resources for what could prove to be a long, hot summer?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I do not wish to be unkind to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan), who has struck me, in the short time I have known him, as a very decent fellow, but he has only just toddled into the Chamber and is now rising to ask the Home Secretary a question. He cannot expect to be called in relation to this statement, because he was not here for it. We will hear from the hon. Gentleman on another occasion—we are saving him up.

Calais

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is an extremely important statement. That said, may I just point out to the House that well in excess of 30 people wish to take part in the final day of the Budget debate, and therefore that there is a premium on brevity? The tutor in this matter today can be Mr Philip Hollobone.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

A lorry driver constituent, Peter Clark, turned up at Calais with a cement mixer from Italy. He asked the French authorities to check it. It was six o’clock in the morning and they said they had no torches and their ladder was locked up. He crossed the border with five Vietnamese illegal immigrants on board and now faces a fine. Will the Home Secretary tell the French that they need to raise their game?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.] I wish to inform the House that in a correction to the business statement I made on Thursday, tomorrow’s business will begin with the Appropriations Bill and continue with a full day’s debate on the issue of English votes for English laws, as set out last week.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House—[Interruption.] Order. Ordinarily, when there is a change to business, there is a supplementary business statement to the House. If I may say so, that is the proper course to follow. In this place, we tend to be guided and governed to a considerable extent by precedent, and I simply make the point—I hope in a gentle, understated and courteous way—that following that precedent would seem to be sensible. It is not obvious why there should be a departure from it. That said, I thank the Leader of the House for what he has said. It is the fact that he has dealt with it in this way that has been the cause of some commotion.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. We found out only by accident that this change to the business was going to be announced to the House in this way—we heard about it through the media. Of course, we heard initially that the statutory instrument on hunting was to be debated on Thursday of this week only because we had a load of people from the pro-hunting lobby emailing us about it before it was announced to this House. That was then shifted to Wednesday at the business statement last week. We now learn through the media that it is being withdrawn altogether, while the debate on English votes for English laws has become a general debate. May I ask that we make provision in our Standing Orders for a business statement every day, because the Government seem to be getting into such a shambles with their own legislation?

[Mr Speaker]

The resources of civilisation have not been exhausted. Precisely because I thought that ordinarily such a matter would be treated by way of a supplementary business statement, and in the light of the evident interest in the House in the matter, I will, with the agreement of the House, treat it as a supplementary business statement, in relation to which colleagues’ contributions are therefore not just invited but welcomed.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. When the Leader—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Forgive me if I did not make myself sufficiently clear. We are very pleased to have the Leader of the House here. What I said was that, as this would normally be a supplementary business statement, we will operate on that basis. Therefore, there is no “Further to that point of order.” The right hon. Gentleman, in his full splendour, can now ask a question to which I hope he will elicit a reply from the Leader of the House.

[Mr Carmichael]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I very much share your hope in that regard. When the Leader came to the House last Thursday, he told us:

“on Monday I will, having listened to comments from hon. Members, publish a modified set of draft Standing Orders on English votes for English laws.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 451.]

As a consequence, I spent yesterday in a state of fevered anticipation, but went home at the end of the day an empty-handed and disappointed man. In fact, the draft set of modified Standing Orders was not published until after midday today. Do you know of any reason for that, Mr Speaker? How many hounds are we allowed to employ to flush out an explanation from the Leader of the House?

[Mr Speaker]

I have no knowledge of that matter. I very gently say to the right hon. Gentleman, whose humour has not deserted him, that his question and other questions must be directed not at me but at the Leader of the House, who can respond accordingly.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

We are focused on Lincolnshire rather than Hampshire or Northamptonshire on this occasion, but we will hear from the hon. Members ere long in a different context, I feel sure.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

7. How many people from Syria have been (a) granted and (b) declined asylum in the last four years.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point about the way in which people can be radicalised, and about how they can be vulnerable and exploited in that way. The new Prevent duty has been introduced precisely to ensure that all governmental agencies are focused on those issues to prevent such travel.

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister was determined to prove that the width of the question could be met by the width of the answer.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

To make an application in the United Kingdom many Syrian refugees face death by crossing the Mediterranean or, as I witnessed at the weekend, by running into the channel tunnel or jumping on speeding lorries in Calais. This is an EU problem. What is to be done about processing some of those applications on the north African shelf so that people are able to make their applications without risking death?

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I was going to give the hon. Lady an opportunity on this question if she wants, because child abuse images online are an extremely antisocial form of behaviour.

[Victoria Prentis]

17. They are extremely antisocial, Mr Speaker; in fact, I can think of few more antisocial kinds of behaviour than videoing children and posting their images online. Does my right hon. Friend agree that social media and other communications companies have a responsibility to work with Government and the police to reduce access to indecent images such as these?

Reports into Investigatory Powers

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It might be helpful for the House to know that approximately 20 Back-Benchers are seeking to catch my eye. At this stage, I am not imposing a formal time limit, but a certain self-restraint, or self-denying ordinance, would be helpful. We can be led in this important mission by Mr Dominic Grieve.

Border Management (Calais)

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That exchange was of singular interest, and should probably be preserved, and will be, in the Official Report, for the delectation of future generations. However, if others imitate it in length, we will be here for some hours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Gethins]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Home Secretary is giving her answer to the hon. Gentleman. It is not appropriate to try to raise a point of order in the middle of an answer. It is unparliamentary. It is also—dare I say it?—more than a tad discourteous.

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was merely saying that I think this country can be proud of the contribution we have made to help to deal with the Syrian refugee crisis.