Government Policy on the Proceedings of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Hon. Members]

We didn’t call it!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Large numbers of hon. Members are proclaiming from a sedentary position the self-evident truth that it was not their decision to call the election—a perfectly valid piece of information, but entirely useless for the purposes of this debate. The important point is that Members must be able to hear each other speak in it.

[Mr Harper]

Of course, it was technically the decision of this House to have the early election. The Prime Minister brought the motion before the House but— thanks to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which I had a little hand in—it was, of course, the decision of the House to have the election.

My point stands. There were three opportunities when the House could have voted down the regulations. The Opposition had the time and chose not to debate them. The point is that the regulations had already come into force when the House was faced with the debate on 13 September, so voting against them would have had no practical effect. It would have been a completely pointless exercise to have a vote that would have had no effect. It is not, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, the House being a talking shop. Procedures about when we have to vote on secondary legislation are set out in the statutory instruments legislation and the parent Acts; those time limits had expired. That is the Opposition’s fault because they had three opportunities in January when they could have used their time to debate the matter, but they chose not to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

It is an arguable point. I have made my argument and the hon. Gentleman has made his, as he will no doubt do again later.

There were two good reasons why the Government chose, looking at the words on the Order Paper on 13 September, not to divide the House. I do not think that sets a precedent for the future. The Government will make those decisions when they look at future Opposition day motions. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is making a mountain out of a molehill. I suggest that the House waits to see what happens on future Opposition days before it gets itself so worked up. We have had a good gambol around the subject but I do not really think that the right hon. Gentleman has made his case to the satisfaction of Members more generally.

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman has concluded his speech, for which we are grateful. I call Valerie Vaz.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Stephen Hammond.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon, but I think the Leader of the House was intending to come in next. Am I right?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)]

Mr Speaker, it is entirely a matter for the Chair.

[Mr Speaker]

It most certainly is a matter for the Chair. The right hon. Lady does not have to be difficult about it. What I was seeking to establish is whether she is an eager speaker; if she is, she can speak, and if she is not, she will not. It is pretty straightforward. Frankly—let me just say this—the Government Front Bench and the Opposition Front Bench should have sorted this out between them in advance of the debate. It was a degree of cack-handed incompetence that they did not do so.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Mr Speaker, I can absolutely assure you that, as in all things, my office was assiduous in coming to the Speaker’s Office to request that we speak straight after the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael)—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Leader of the House really ought to know by now that these matters are dealt with differently on different occasions and that there are precedents either way. What we know is that the right hon. Lady has the opportunity to speak, and quite a full opportunity, and therefore nothing of which to complain. The Leader of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

I am one of the people as well, and I will conduct my voting in this Chamber entirely on the basis of my own opinion and my own conscience. I decide when and how I vote, not the Government, and on the occasion in question, I chose to deploy my vote accordingly. I was in agreement with the first motion, because the lead I tend to take from my Front Bench was in agreement with it. Why would I therefore choose to oppose it? On the second motion, although I was against the sentiments being expressed, it was clear to me that, in accordance with the statute, however I expressed my opinion, it would make no difference. That is the matter in a nutshell.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I exercised some latitude for the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), not least in light of his starring performance this morning, when he asked the most succinct question, but that was a mini-speech rather than an intervention. I simply take this opportunity to remind the House that the debate can last until three minutes past 6. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has not taken up a great deal of time so far, so this is not directed specifically at him, but I simply make the point that if Members want to speak, they should try to help each other, and that means refraining from, dare I say it, lengthy or self-indulgent interventions.

[Pete Wishart]

What would we have done without the contribution from the right hon. Gentleman? He does what he wants, as he always has done, and he should make sure he always does that in the future.

I got a bit sidetracked there with the very interesting intervention from the right hon. Gentleman, but I want to come back to this notion of parliamentary sovereignty, which is something my friends on the Conservative Back Benches hold dear. It is about expressing the will of the people in this House. Parliamentary sovereignty is the be-all and end-all—Conservative Members are even committing this great indulgence of economic, cultural and political self-harm by leaving the European Union so they can have more parliamentary sovereignty. They should start to demonstrate their commitment to it by recognising that this is a minority Parliament. We are here to serve all the people of the country, and we have to have arrangements to make sure we properly reflect that.

The Government seem to see not being defeated as some sort of virility symbol, as if being defeated shatters their delusion that they somehow have a majority. When it comes to these issues, the Government will have to stop behaving so arrogantly; they will have to accept their minority status and act with a bit of humility. They went to the people a few short months ago to ask for a mandate and for an increase in their majority; that is what it was all about—they wanted to take advantage of what they saw as the situation in the Labour party. What happened? They came back as a minority—they lost their majority—so maybe responding with a little less arrogance and a little more humility would do them some good.

The second principle of minority Government is that you sometimes have to work harder to get your way. That, again, is what happens in other Parliaments, but we have seen no example of it from the Leader of the House today. There is no point the Government trying to bludgeon their will through in Parliament, as they are currently doing; it is much better to negotiate and make deals to ensure they get solutions. I thought that that was what we were going to get. I will not break the confidence of the Leader of the House by talking about my meetings with her, except to say that when I had my first conversation with her, I was encouraged by what she had to say about her approach to Parliament. She talked about a basis of consensus—trying to get agreement and progress legislation and motions through Parliament on the basis of agreement—but all that seems to have gone. I wish we had the earlier Leader of the House instead of the one who is standing here now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

It might be helpful to the House to know that, in an attempt to accommodate everybody who wishes to take part, I am minded at this stage to put a seven-minute limit on each Back-Bench contribution. That inevitably is subject to change, but I hope that will not be necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Ross]

I am sorry, but as the hon. Gentleman has totally misunderstood what is happening in Scotland with this piece of legislation, it is important that I provide a potted history of what happened. It was introduced by a majority SNP Government in 2011 with no support from the Opposition parties. Legal experts told them that it was wrong, a senior judge went on to say that the legislation was “mince”, and then a Labour MSP’s consultation on repealing the legislation attracted 3,000 responses, 70% of which said that the Act should be repealed. What is happening now? I will tell you. In November last year—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman held out the prospect for the House that he would provide a potted history of what had happened in relation to the relevant piece of Scottish legislation. I think that he has somewhat stretched the definition and meaning of the word “potted”, and what I am politely indicating to the hon. Gentleman is that he should gravitate towards the thrust of the debate, rather than occupy the tramlines.

[Douglas Ross]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. You unfortunately stopped me mid-thrust because I was about to come to that point. The final element came in November last year, when I led a debate on the matter in the Scottish Parliament, which then voted to repeal the 2012 Act. The Opposition parties voted for the repeal, but nothing has happened in the past year. The point that I am trying to get across is that people cannot state that what the Opposition parties say here must be respected when they do not respect what such parties say in another Parliament, so I will take no lectures from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire about that.

Parliament gave a view on the two motions that prompted today’s debate. There was a full discussion, with Government Members matching Opposition Members speaker for speaker, and the House did not dissent from the motions. The House expressed an opinion. Our constituents would rather that we focused on the crucial issues that are coming up later this evening instead of spending hours discussing procedural matters. Our constituents would be better served by our getting on to those debates, which I look forward to listening to in the near future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There are three remaining would-be contributors. The way that things have worked out means that we have slightly more time—[Interruption.] Yes, I know that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) will be sad that it did not happen for him, but we have heard him many times before, and we will hear him many times again. The limit will now be eight minutes per Back-Bench speech. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene all over the place because he enjoys the mellifluous sound of his own voice, we will wait in eager anticipation of that prospect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

I can assure the House that it has been some years since I wrote my own press releases. What I want is an assurance that where the House reaches a decision—this is the point that the hon. Member for Wellingborough made—that decision will be acted on and respected by the Government. We have had no assurance on that point for the third time today. The House will draw its own conclusion from that failure to deny.

From any Minister of the Crown, that would be regrettable. It pains me to say that, from the Leader of the House, who is supposed to be the House’s representative in Government, it is a dereliction of her duties. Those on the Treasury Bench can continue to avoid this issue if they wish, but if they do, it will keep coming back. Inevitably, because this is a democracy, the day will come when they are sitting on the Opposition Benches and somebody else is sitting where they are now. I fear that it is only then that they will understand the damage that they are doing to our House and our constitution now.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Government's policy in relation to the proceedings of this House.

[Mr Speaker]

We shall shortly be proceeding to the next business, and I am keenly anticipating that, in a matter only of moments, the Clerk will proceed to read the Orders of the Day. However, in order for us properly to proceed with that business, there is a requirement for the presence of relevant Ministers and shadow Ministers, and—for I am not casting aspersions—there is also a requirement for an occupant of the Chair, as the House will be sitting in Committee and the Speaker does not chair the proceedings in Committee, as Members will know. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) is gesticulating in a very gentle way from a sedentary position that the Minister is present on the Treasury Bench, and I am happy to acknowledge that. [Interruption.] The occupant of the Chair is here and I think others are also here. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

First, may I advise you strongly, Mr Speaker, to nail down your Chair, just in case? The hon. Gentleman is clearly concerned that someone might run off with it.

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman shows his usual contempt for this place, which is actually a bastion of democracy. [Interruption.] He calls it a tinpot dictatorship, which is pretty contemptuous. It is a great shame, but it comes as no surprise; that attitude pervades his approach to this place.

The hon. Gentleman raises the question of, as he calls it, the “grubby deal”. The confidence and supply arrangement with the DUP provides funding to the Northern Ireland Executive, once reconstituted, and frankly I am sick of Opposition Members putting it forward that this is somehow finding its way to a political party. They know full well that that is not the case. They also know full well that there have been many support packages for different parts of the United Kingdom. The money being provided for Northern Ireland will go towards tackling incredibly important problems and challenges in Northern Ireland, such as mental ill health, the consequences of the troubles, and infrastructure.

In response to the hon. Gentleman’s question on the hours allocated for the eight-day Committee of the whole House on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, we have provided eight hours a day of protected time. In fact, that compares rather favourably with the 39 hours and 17 minutes provided for discussion of the Lisbon treaty. As we showed when we extended the time for debate on Second Reading of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill following a request from Members, we will of course look carefully at this matter. Finally, it is a bit rich of the hon. Gentleman to say that the conference recess is held at the behest of the Liberal Democrats when he himself came to me to ask whether we could consider changing the dates to suit the Scottish National party conference—[Laughter.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In thanking the Leader of the House for her kind invitation, I can confirm to the House that my Chair is not going anywhere. Neither am I, for that matter. I call Mr Peter Bone.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is none the less a serious point that you bring up. Parliament clearly voted for two motions yesterday, so it seems to me that the Government are going to have to listen carefully to what the House says, or at least, as a minimum, if they lose a vote in the House—

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am bound to say to the Leader of the House, to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and to the House as a whole that, as Members can probably tell, my cup runneth over. I am in a state of overwhelming excitement. On a formal level, I should just tell the House that as chair of the Commons reference group on representation and inclusion, of which mention has been made, I can say that we are fully seized of the right hon. and learned Lady’s proposals relating to baby leave. Indeed, we discussed them fully on Tuesday afternoon. We are committed to vigorously pursuing them with a view to an effective motion being brought before the House for its decision.

I call Mr Philip Davies.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I should just say, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be very relieved to hear this, that nobody has ever suggested he should be granted the status of an honorary sister.

[Philip Davies]

I was just about to commend you, Mr Speaker, for identifying the other honorary sister on the Conservative Benches, for I presumed that was why I had been called.

It is bad enough that we have a bloated, wasteful and unaffordable overseas aid budget, but it is even more ridiculous that we now learn we cannot spend our overseas aid budget on our overseas territories. As we are getting back control from the unelected and unaccountable European Union, may I suggest that we now get back control over our overseas aid spending from the unelected, unaccountable, out-of-touch morons at the OECD, so that we can spend our overseas aid budget on the things that we want to spend it on, rather than on the things that they tell us to?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you for allowing me to raise an important issue, one that might require parliamentary privilege, Mr Speaker. TTX Express in my constituency has been in business for 40 years. It employs 90 people and is Tesco’s haulage company of the year. It has an outstanding complaint with Clydesdale bank, whose chief executive we met in this place, when a commitment was given to review the complaint and to hold a meeting before action was taken to sell the land from which this company trades from under its feet. The bank carried out a thin internal review and then refused to meet in the way it had agreed to.

The business is due to go into administration tomorrow, and I understand that the bank has agreed the sale of the land to a third party. That puts at risk 90 jobs and a long-standing business in my constituency. When it has gone to the Financial Conduct Authority for support, the FCA has concluded that it cannot review the complaint because it is outside its scope. Having seen the evidence, it is my belief that potentially criminal activity has been taking place, so my question is this: will the Leader of the House support my call for the bank to hold off on the sale and the administration? In addition, will she use parliamentary business to look at the support available to businesses with complaints of this type?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman was quite fortunate that I was immersed in conversation with the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies); I think he probably owes him a cup of tea.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) raises a serious issue. A number of businesses feel that they have significant complaints about how banks have treated them in recent years. He has put that issue on the record and I am sure he is taking it up with the Treasury. I encourage him to continue to try to address the matter with the FCA.

Nomination of Members to Committees

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

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

This is not some great constitutional crisis; it is within the thread of our constitution. The great Duke of Wellington’s guiding constitutional principle was that the King’s Government must be carried on. In older age, he changed it to the Queen’s Government. That is the situation today. Since 1881, when, Mr Speaker, your illustrious predecessor, Speaker Brand, brought debate to a close, it has been recognised that the rules of the House must ensure that business can be proceeded with efficiently. That has been put into Standing Orders, and Standing Orders have been consistently amended and altered, suspended or changed, to ensure that the Government of the day can get their business through. It is very straightforward: if the Government of the day do not command a majority, a vote of no confidence is tabled and the Government fall. That is the fundamental principle of our constitution.

After that, what we are dealing with is purely administrative, not highfalutin constitutionalism. We know, because the Queen’s Speech was carried, that in the House there is a majority for the Government’s programme. It is therefore legitimate for the motion for an amendment to Standing Orders to be passed tonight, to ensure that that which has already been established on the Floor of the House applies in Committee.

The absurdity of the Opposition’s position is that the Committee of Selection, when there is an odd number on a Committee, should always give that odd number so that the Government can be defeated. How does that represent either the result of the general election or the combination of seats in the House? It is clear that with an odd number, the majority must belong to the governing side, with the support of our friends in the Democratic Unionist party who voted for the Queen’s Speech.

When the numbers are even, the result in the Bill Committee will of course be determined by the vote of the Chairman, who, by convention, will vote for no change. That will mean no change in the Bill passed on the Floor of the House, which will mean that both Government and Opposition amendments will fail in Committee if it is even-numbered, and will be tabled again on Report. Any Bill must have been presented by a Government who have a majority, and who have not been overturned by a vote of no confidence. It must be the case that the Bill has been given a Second Reading, and therefore, in principle, commands a majority in the House. On Report, any changes made in Committee can be overturned, so if we lose the support of our friends in the Democratic Unionist party, any proposal that is disliked can be stopped. Then there is the final stage, Third Reading. At every stage, the will of the House will be respected.

The speech, of great elegance, that was made by the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), and the speech—of equal elegance—that was made by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), had the great virtue of enormous and gloriously synthetic anger. Their fundamental good nature shone through. We saw that they knew that if they were in the Government’s position, exactly the same motion would be before the House. We know that in 1976, such a motion was snuck before the House on a quiet Friday when no one would notice. There is tradition for this; there is precedent for this; and it is the right thing for the party, the House, the Government and the nation.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Kevin Foster.

Mr Foster was on the list, but he has obviously taken himself off the list. In that case, we will have the joys of Mr Eddie Hughes.

--- Later in debate ---

(2) That the Table in paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 119 (European Committees) be amended in respect of European Committee C, by inserting “Digital,” before “Culture, Media and Sport”.—(Andrew Stephenson.)

[Mr Speaker]

I feel sure that hon. Members will wish to listen intently to the petition from Mr Tommy Sheppard, but in the extraordinary eventuality that colleagues do not wish to hear about Mr Sheppard’s petition, perhaps they can do us all the courtesy of leaving the Chamber quickly and quietly so that the hon. Gentleman can speak briefly to it.

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business and for tabling the motion on Select Committees. It has been drawn to my attention that the Chair of the International Development Committee does not appear to be on the list; I hope that will be rectified soon. Her Majesty’s Opposition have been ready for the Select Committees to start since July; nevertheless, they will be taking evidence next week, so I thank the Leader of the House for arranging that.

We have had R and R—rest and relaxation—and we have had rock and roll, although I did not get an invitation to Glastonbury. All that is left now is restoration and renewal. Will the Leader of the House please tell us when we are likely to have the debate on restoration and renewal? The House needs to consider the proposals as soon as possible.

Look at what the Government have done to our children who were expelled because they missed out on a few grades. We teach our children that it is okay to fail; that is how we learn from our mistakes, and sometimes that is the spur that leads children to go on to do better things. We had the bizarre situation of parents having to threaten judicial review just to get their children back into education. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Education to make it clear that every child can have an education? Some headteachers do not appear to be abiding by the law.

Will the Leader of the House ask the Chancellor to make a statement on the fiscal rules? It seems that the Ministry of Justice broke Treasury pay rules for civil servants for a six-month period from last October by increasing the overtime pay rate for prison staff by £5 an hour. The Opposition agree with that increase, but I understand that there are Treasury rules. We need a statement on whether or not there are fiscal rules. We could do with that clarity for the NHS, because our nurses need to be paid.

The cherry-picking season is over. Look at what the Government have done to our health service. The Secretary of State for Health picked a fight with Professor Stephen Hawking, who rightly told him to stop the slide towards privatising the health service—a person who can explain a black hole against a Secretary of State who cannot even recognise a financial black hole. The sustainability and transformation plans are the second reorganisation of the NHS under this Government. There is a crisis in social care, £100 million will be spent on recruiting GPs from abroad, and the health service needs a cash boost of £350 million. After the Government’s defeat in the House of Lords yesterday on their decision to abandon the 18-week target time for treatment, will the Leader of the House please ensure that the Secretary of State comes to the House to explain this shredding of Government policy, because we have had silence from him? Otherwise, what is the point of the Secretary of State?

There has been more pain and distress for our constituents, as highlighted in last week’s United Nations report on people with disabilities. The report said that the UK has failed to ensure that the UN convention on disabled people’s rights is reflected in current law. Will the Leader of the House tell us when the Government will respond to the report, which found a persistent employment and pay gap for disabled people?

The Leader of the House mentioned the Brexit Bill; look what the Government have done to the Brexit negotiations. They should have allowed the civil service to use position papers to present the facts. That way, we would not now be seeing the whole thing unravelling. Clauses 7, 8 and 9 of the Bill state:

“A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate”.

Never before have Ministers been given such unfettered powers. Will the Leader of the House confirm how many statutory instruments will come before the House? Is it likely to be more than 500? Fewer than 1,000? Anyone from any party who believes in parliamentary democracy, the sovereignty of Parliament and the separation of powers should be against the Bill. The Government are playing Jenga with our economy and our rights.

As if that is not enough, the Government want to fix the Standing Committees. They do not have a majority in Parliament, but they want a majority on Standing Committees. Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Government will not insult the British people, who did not give them a majority, and that they will ensure that the result of the election is reflected in the Standing Committees?

I wish to touch on the eminent people who have recently died: our friend in the other place, Lord Garry Hart, who was a leading planning lawyer before he come to the Lords; Michael Siefert, who sent his lawyers to give free legal advice to people during the miners’ strike; Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, the former Archbishop of Westminster; and of course Heather Heyer, who was mown down in Charlottesville for opposing racism and anti-Semitism.

Finally, I wish to draw the House’s attention to a film that is doing the rounds— “Dennis Skinner: Nature of the Beast”. What Members will find is that, like the sovereignty of Parliament, the beast of Bolsover will endure.

[Mr Speaker]

Splendid. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) is even smiling. Marvellous.

[Andrea Leadsom]

May I thank the hon. Lady for that tour de force? I must also thank the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), because, in trying very hard to help a potential colleague of mine to unseat him—

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I must advise the House that although there is extensive interest, as always, in business questions, there is a ministerial statement to follow. Approximately 60 Members also wish to contribute to the debate on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, and I have to take account of their interests. So exceptionally—and colleagues know it would be exceptionally—it may not be possible today to get everybody in. The chances of my doing so will be greatly enhanced if the premium on brevity from Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike is observed.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Over the summer, many of my constituents in Aldridge-Brownhills have once again had to endure the litter, rubbish, antisocial behaviour and noise caused by unauthorised Traveller encampments on public open spaces and village commons. Even our local football club, Walsall Wood, has been affected. I am sure the House understands the upset and frustration this causes. Can we please have a debate in Government time to look at the matter, including at the powers available to councils and police, and—really importantly—the impact on our local communities?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman raised this point earlier. He is right: there was an administrative oversight in the last-minute running-around, and it will be rectified. I can assure him that his Committee and the Brexit scrutiny Committee will be on the Order Paper for Monday.

[Mr Speaker]

They might momentarily have been forgotten. The hon. Gentleman has never been, and will never be, forgotten.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

May I thank the Leader of the House for taking time out of her busy day yesterday to attend the launch of “A Manifesto to Strengthen Families”, which is supported by 44 Back-Bench Conservative MPs? It contains 18 practical policy proposals, such as strengthening prisoners’ family ties and promoting greater support for veterans’ families and for fatherhood. Does she agree that this subject has long needed more consideration by Members of this House, and will she meet a small group of those 44 MPs to discuss how more parliamentary debate time can be provided for it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am sure, Mr Speaker, that you are as concerned as I am to hear about that. I will certainly look into the matter; I assure the right hon. Lady that I will take it up later today.

[Mr Speaker]

The situation is extremely irregular, and the right hon. Lady has my sympathies. I hope that she will not take it out of good humour if I say that I am rather surprised that the lift dared.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

In August, 15 Gypsy and Traveller motorhomes and caravans invaded the popular open green space at the foot of the Ise Lodge residential estate in Kettering. Rubbish and human faeces were left in the undergrowth; the local convenience store had to employ a security guard; and widespread harassment, alarm and distress were caused to the local settled community. The police refused to use the section 61 powers open to them to request the Travellers to move on. May we have an urgent statement from the Home Office that it will review the powers available to the police so that we can have an effective system to protect the settled community from the intimidation caused by Gypsies and Travellers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am afraid that we are now running very short of time, so I am looking for single-short-sentence questions. It is really a matter of good faith. If people want to ask a single-short-sentence question, that is fine, but if they want to include a long preamble, it is better they keep it for the long winter evenings that lie ahead.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

May we have a debate in Government time on the impact on higher education institutions of the UK’s immigration policy throughout the Brexit process and beyond?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Awamiyah, a predominantly Shi’a district in Saudi Arabia, has been surrounded by siege barricades since Government attempts to relocate residents in order to redevelop the neighbourhood in May 2017. There are many reports of heavy clashes between Saudi citizens and military forces, and entire blocks have been demolished. Thousands of local citizens have fled—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has breached his one short sentence. I am waiting for the question mark.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement or debate on the matter?

Scheduling of Parliamentary Business

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

The hon. Lady does not realise how lucky she is. When we were in opposition, we did not have the benefit of this Speaker in the Chair to call urgent questions with the frequency that he does now to the huge advantage of the House. We would have traded any number of Opposition days for the wisdom of the current Speaker—long may he remain in the Chair. By the time hon. Members actually get to an Opposition day debate, the Gallery is empty and the journalists have all pushed off having written their copy.

[Mr Speaker]

I am overcome with excitement. I am going to get very emotional in a moment. We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Valerie Vaz]

That intervention deserves no response whatever; I am really sorry.

Wait for this: in the 2010-12 Session, extra days were provided for business. Once the 20 Opposition days provided for in the Standing Orders had been allocated, a further 14 unallotted days were provided. We need certainty. The Government have not provided for an Opposition day before the summer recess, making the earliest Opposition day in September 2017. This means a staggering eight months—nearly as long as it takes to have a baby—without a single Opposition day, denying vital scrutiny of Government business. As you know, Mr Speaker, the last Opposition day was on 25 January. At the same point into the parliamentary Session in 2010-12, the Opposition were granted three Opposition days, and five in the 2015 Session.

We need to be clear. At business questions last week, the Leader of the House said in response to a question—not to me, although I did ask—that a date was offered in September. I was not aware of this Opposition day, whether through the usual channels or the usual suspects, so we need to clarify what a Session is. It is now two years, but we would not expect one year’s worth of Opposition days to be allocated over those two years. Why is this important? Today is the 18th day that the new Parliament has been sitting. So far, legislation has been discussed only on four of those days for a total of just under 13 hours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I have to say that it is a bit rich of the Leader of the House to give us the number of days between the Queen’s Speech and the recess, since the Government set the date of the recess and delayed the date of the Queen’s Speech. In 1997, how many days were there before the recess? Two. In 2001? One. In 2005? Five. In 2010? Two—and that is when the Conservatives had to cobble together a ludicrous Government. In 2015? Five. So she is talking through a hole in her head. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

It may have been a case of mistaken identity, but I thought I detected a Somerset burr in the voice saying, “Order.” My judgment is that what the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has said was not disorderly; whether it was in entirely good taste is a matter for people’s judgment. However, the Leader of the House is a robust character, and I think she is unfazed. The only other observation I make at this stage—the Leader of the House has referred to me a number of times—is that, just as a point of fact, the tears in my eyes on Centre Court yesterday were tears of joy for the greatest of all time.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I felt sure, Mr Speaker, that were you to feel a bit emotional today, they would of course be tears of joy as well, so I am not inconsistent. As for the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), he may be technically correct, but he is extremely rude.

In the extended parliamentary Session of 2010-12, we provided extra days for private Members’ Bills. The Standing Orders set out that electing the Chairs of Select Committees is a matter for political parties to agree on. Again, Chairs of Select Committees have been elected just as quickly as in previous Parliaments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This debate is about Opposition days and our ability to hold the Government to account. If the Leader of the House wants debates about the subjects she is now referring to, why does she not allow them rather than diverting from what this debate is about?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is aware that Front Benchers are usually accorded a modest latitude in developing their arguments, hence I have allowed a modest latitude, but I think the Leader of the House will shortly return to the thrust of the matter under debate—not what might have been under debate but what is under debate. I know that she will focus on that; I am perfectly sanguine on that score.

[Chris Bryant]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think there is a “further”, but I will indulge the hon. Gentleman.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House has said quite categorically that she believes that the debate we are having now is completely irrelevant and the far more important one will take place later on. I just wonder, because I noticed the number of Conservative Members who stood to catch your eye earlier, whether you think that more Conservative Members would like to take part in this debate or in the debate that the Government have scheduled for later tonight.

[Mr Speaker]

The answer is that lots of Members are wanting to speak today. In this debate, which can last for a maximum of three hours, a lot of Government Back Benchers wish to speak. I am keen to accommodate both Government Back Benchers and Opposition Back Benchers, and I am certainly keen to accommodate would-be maiden speakers. Therefore, if we can now minimise points of frustration and focus on the debate, I think that would be beneficial to all concerned.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I was going to continue, Mr Speaker, to talk about the way we have sought to improve our ability to live within our means, and the amazing employment record of this Government, in an effort to get the Opposition to focus on what really matters. Nevertheless, I will not bother to talk about employment, but will continue on to the Opposition’s desire to consider process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I have to take it on trust, but I hope it is a point of order rather than a point of frustration.

[Mr Jones]

I know that you were deep in conversation, Mr Speaker, but the Leader of the House has returned to issues that have nothing to do with this debate. She is just giving a long list of what this Government have achieved. If she really wants those issues to be properly aired, why will she not give us Opposition day debates so that we can vote on them?

[Mr Speaker]

I note the hon. Gentleman’s point. As far as I can tell—I hope I sense correctly—the Leader of the House is very likely approaching her peroration. A lot of Members wish to speak and there is usually a rough equivalence between the length of time taken by the Opposition spokesperson and the Government spokesperson. At this stage the right hon. Lady is in order, but I imagine that she is probably nearing the conclusion of her remarks.

[Andrea Leadsom]

rose—

[Mr Jones]

Go on, get on with it!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There was no need for that. It is rather ungracious of the hon. Gentleman to yell from a sedentary position. He can always adopt a gentle burr, like the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), which is altogether more seemly.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Opposition Members are certainly not being very charming this evening, are they? I was trying to outline some of the issues that really matter to the people of our great country. It is in the interests of our country that this Government provide certainty, continuity and control, as we forge a new and successful future for the whole of the United Kingdom. I hope that colleagues agree that the safety, welfare and prosperity of this country should be our priority, and I will work with all willing colleagues across the House to achieve that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. I am disappointed that time will not allow me to contribute to the debate on the intimidation of general election candidates. Nevertheless, I will contribute fully when the opportunity arises, drawing on my own experiences. I thank the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who is from a neighbouring constituency.

It is a great privilege to be here today, delivering my maiden speech and representing my home constituency of Angus. I pay tribute to my predecessor, Mike Weir, who served the people of Angus very well in his 16 years in the House. He was a prominent campaigner to save the local post offices in the constituency, and in the House he took on the role of Chief Whip for his party. I wish him all the very best in his future endeavours.

It would be remiss of me not to mention also the previous Conservative and Unionist MP for Angus, the late Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, as he was known after being ennobled in 1989. He was not just a great local voice for his area in this House, but had a remarkable legal career.

The diverse constituency of Angus, nestled north of Dundee and south of Aberdeenshire, incorporates the most beautiful, dramatic coastlines to the east and picturesque, tranquil glens to the north-west. The five main towns are Forfar, Kirriemuir, Montrose, Arbroath and Brechin, where I was born, brought up and educated. There are a number of villages and rural communities as well.

Unfortunately, it is the residents and businesses of those remote areas who have suffered most significantly from the lack of mobile and broadband coverage. With the current coverage roll-out being below the national average, it is unsurprising that this issue has emerged at every single constituency surgery I have held to date. I will use my voice here in Westminster to ensure that the Scottish Government deliver connectivity right across Angus, ensuring that residents and businesses are not left behind because of where they choose to reside and operate.

From my agricultural roots, I understand the importance of this industry to Angus and to Scotland. With the area producing 25% of Scottish soft fruit and 30% of the country’s potatoes, agriculture remains a significant contributor to the local economy. Local farmers understand the increasing importance of diversification and Angus is home to many successful projects, ranging from renewables to the first potato-based vodka, Ogilvy vodka, which is distilled locally near the village of Glamis.

Glamis itself incorporates the famous residence of Glamis castle, the childhood home of the late Queen Mother. I recently attended the annual Glamis prom, one of the many excellent events that are held in the grounds of the castle, attracting thousands of people from across Scotland.

Attractions across Angus entice tourists from far and wide, whether it is to visit the many historic houses and gardens, to try their hand at golf on some of the best known courses, or to get involved in a variety of outdoor pursuits. Montrose port will welcome its first cruise ship, which is due to dock next year—a further great boost for our local economy and tourism industry. Nevertheless, I am incredibly aware that there is a power of work to be done to further promote the area, to support the current offering and to ensure that no one slips north into Aberdeenshire without tasting a Forfar bridie en route.

The businesses throughout Angus range from the local to the global. We have engineering and manufacturing, oil and gas, textiles and a highly regarded food and drink offering. A host of global businesses operate across every corner of Angus in key sectors, including pharmaceuticals giant GlaxoSmithKline; the Montrose textile manufacturer Wilkie in Kirriemuir; the marmalade, preserves and curds exporter Mackays in Arbroath; the textile innovator Don & Low in Forfar; and the design and engineering specialists Hydrus in Brechin. They are supported by a strong network of local businesses, which collectively are the lifeblood of our local economy, providing the jobs that Angus so desperately needs. As a Government, we must support them wherever possible, enabling both prosperity and longevity.

Angus has much to be proud of. However, like many places, it has concerns that my constituents have asked me to stand up and represent them on. The rate of unemployment, particularly among the youth, continues to lie above the national average due to several factors. The north-east oil and gas industry, which many residents in Angus rely on heavily, still has positivity, with new oil fields emerging, but the steady decline in recent years has had a large impact on the livelihoods of residents and on businesses throughout Angus. My north-east colleagues and I will work together with the industry wherever possible to support them.

As we face the challenge of Brexit, I am confident that the Scottish farming and fishing communities have the resilience to remain one of the key pillars of our economy. One of the greatest opportunities from Brexit is the chance to build a support system that works for Angus and for all areas of our United Kingdom.

The political landscape in Angus has demonstrated a clear shift in recent years. In the 2014 referendum on independence, we recorded an above average no vote. In the last three elections, there has been a considerable vote swing towards the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party. Those were strong messages to Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP that the time for constitutional trouble-making was over. Make no mistake, I and my Scottish Conservative, Scottish Labour and Scottish Liberal Democratic colleagues are as patriotic as my Scottish National party colleagues. We now need to ask them to remove the threat of uncertainty over Scotland’s economy and Scotland’s people. No ifs, no buts—a second divisive independence referendum should be taken off the table.

I remain optimistic for the future of Angus and the extensive Tay cities deal, which will directly support those who live and work in Angus. The planned £1.8 billion investment will include key programmes specifically for Angus, such as the Hospitalfield future plan; the Dundeecom public-private partnership, which will create a major decommissioning centre in Scotland; and, of course, the ambitious investment corridor from Montrose to the A90 that will enable the delivery of much-needed infrastructure, stimulating major economic growth in north Angus. I look forward to working with the UK Government and all stakeholders to drive forward the Tay cities deal and ensure that it delivers for Angus.

As the Member of Parliament for Angus, my mission is to ensure that I am the strongest of local champions, representing my home turf with the greatest of integrity and never with complacency. As a staunch Unionist, I will continue to fight with every fibre of my being to keep Scotland as part of our wonderful United Kingdom. Quite simply, we are stronger together and weaker apart. I would also like to make it clear that I am here to help all my constituents, no matter how or, indeed, if they voted. I very much look forward to standing up for Angus and for Scotland in this Chamber on many more occasions to come.

[Mr Speaker]

Very warm congratulations to the hon. Lady. We look forward to hearing her and getting to know her in this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I challenge the hon. Gentleman on whether he just called me a middle-aged man?

[Mr Speaker]

I hope he did not; that would be a serious error. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not accusing the Leader of the House of being a middle-aged man, and if he could confirm that, honour will be served.

[Darren Jones]

Of course I would not class the Leader of the House in that group of middle-aged men—but I am sure that she knows each and every one of them as they vie for the leadership of her party and, perhaps, try to take her position.

When Britain faces arguably her most challenging time since the second world war, with decisions taken here in this Parliament deciding what type of country Britain will be for the next generation, it seems to me that the Government need to step up to allow for accountability and opposition. As my hon. colleagues have said, this debate is about the lack of time being given to us, with Opposition day and Back-Bench business debates seemingly in short supply on the basis of simple parliamentary mathematics.

Many Government Members who campaigned to take back control and argued for parliamentary sovereignty for this place will no doubt share my concern. A. V. Dicey, the father of parliamentary constitutional theory, would be turning in his grave; the theories on which he built from Montesquieu on the separation of powers and the trias politica, which mean that power should be balanced between the Executive and the legislature, are not being followed because the Opposition are not being allowed to hold the Government to account. The balance is not as it should be. The taking back of control to this Parliament, as opposed to the Executive, is failing. With a Government entirely consumed by their chaotic management of Brexit, seemingly more interested in self-preservation than the national interest, it must be left to the Opposition to act as a party of government with a mandate for government in our manifesto to ensure proper debate on the issues about which my constituents are concerned.

Dare I say that it is no longer acceptable for Ministers to stand up and say, “Everything will be fine; we are a great nation”? Blind patriotism detached from the real world will only show us as a country out of touch and out of control. That is why we must be allowed proper time for debate in this House, to help the Government understand the reality of their inaction. My frustration at the news yesterday was a prime example, as Ministers decided to waste their time by briefing against each other instead of getting on with the job in hand. That frustration might have been calmed by the knowledge that I would have the opportunity to debate the issues of the day in a grown-up, professional and respectful fashion in this House, in the way my constituents expect of us and for the reasons they elected me to this House in the first place. But it seems that that most normal of asks is being thwarted by the Government, so it is with great disappointment that I find myself having to make this speech in support of the motion from my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), arguing for what should be normal debate in this Parliament.

Although you might not be able to resolve my disappointment, Mr Speaker, at what I found behind the curtain of power, I hope that this House will put the national interest above power games and party political concerns and allow proper time for debate and scrutiny.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it right and appropriate that while my hon. and learned Friend makes a speech, Tory heavies stand at the Bar of the House and heckle and chunter away, though they are not part of this debate?

[Mr Speaker]

I had not heard the alleged chuntering. Hon. Members certainly should not chunter; it is unseemly behaviour. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) is a robust individual and is well able to fend for herself, but they should not stand in an aggressive, Mafioso posture. It is rather disagreeable and quite unnecessary.

[Joanna Cherry]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope this is a point of order rather than a point of advertisement.

[Mark Pritchard]

Not to correct the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), but may I confess that it was not the Whips chuntering? It was my good self, Sir.

[Mr Speaker]

That is both candid of the hon. Gentleman and, arguably, a first.

[Joanna Cherry]

My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire, some hon. Gentlemen and, of course, the Speaker, are gallant, but I can assure them that I have no difficulty with the chuntering going on to my left. It certainly will not put me off my stride.

I was suggesting that the Government need to bring forward a debate on the Floor of the House on the basis for their immigration policy. We heard during the general election campaign that the Prime Minister wants to stick with the unrealistic targets that she has missed for seven years. The reason why the targets are unrealistic is that they are based on ideology, not evidence. We need an evidence-based debate on the Floor of the House about immigration policy for the whole of the UK. If we have that, we will see that immigrants are on average more likely to be in work, better educated and younger than the indigenous population, and that Scotland’s demographic needs are such that we require a progressive immigration policy. As I said earlier, business in Scotland wants this; the Chambers of Commerce and the Institute of Directors in Scotland have said that they want the post-student work visa bought back, and a different immigration policy for Scotland, given its unique democratic needs. Let us have a debate about that, rather than about process.

Countries such as Canada and Australia manage to operate differential immigration procedures within their federation. Professor Christina Boswell of the University of Edinburgh has produced an excellent report evaluating the options for a differentiated approach to immigration policy in Scotland. There is cross-party support in Scotland for the post-study work visa; even the Scottish Tory party supports its return, so what will the Tory MPs do about that, and when will we have a debate about it on the Floor of the House?

Another important issue from the last Parliament is the plight of child refugees in Europe. Many of us, including Conservative Members, fought for their rights, and we got the Dubs amendment to the Immigration Act 2016. Last week, I attended the launch of a report by the Human Trafficking Foundation that followed an independent inquiry on separated and unaccompanied minors in Europe. It reveals that the UK Government have woefully failed those children, and that Ministers have done

“as little as legally possible”

to help unaccompanied children in Europe. It says that the Government have turned from a humanitarian crisis that “would not be tolerable” to the British public if they could see the truth of what was happening in France. When will we be able to hold the Government to account for the promises that they made when the Dubs amendment was agreed to, and for bringing only 480 minors to the United Kingdom when the understanding was that they would bring in 3,000? When will we have a debate about that important issue? We must find time in this Parliament to force the Government to rectify their dereliction of the duty that we imposed on them when we agreed the Dubs amendment.

Finally, on the connected issue of human rights, hon. Members have mentioned the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill that was brought forward last week. Clause 5 makes it clear that the Government do not intend the EU charter of fundamental rights to become part of what they call domestic law after Brexit. This must be challenged and debated immediately. There was a time not so long ago when the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union was a great fan of the charter. He liked it so much that he used it to take up a legal challenge against the “snooper’s charter”, which ended up in the European Court of Justice, but he has changed his mind, and he has brought forward a draft Bill under which a whole swathe of rights and protections enjoyed by our constituents will go, if the Bill is passed unamended. Where is the debate about that?

Business of the House (Private Members’ Bills)

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)]

I beg to move,

That Private Members’ Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 20 October, 3 November, 1 December 2017, 19 January, 2 and 23 February, 16 March, 27 April, 11 May, 15 June, 6 July, 26 October and 23 November 2018.

The purpose of this motion is to provide 13 days for private Members’ business, in line with what is required under Standing Order No. 14. Given that we have already announced that this will be an extended Session, we will of course expect to provide additional days in due course. In the extended parliamentary Session of 2010-12, the Government provided extra days for private Members’ Bills, and these were approved at a later date. The motion we are dealing with today covers days for private Members’ Bills between now and 23 November 2018. We will therefore bring forward a motion to provide additional days for private Members’ Bills in due course, which will allow us to take into account the progress of business and any new recess dates that are announced in future.

This House must balance the needs of Members to proceed with private Members’ business with Members’ other priorities. Members value time spent in their constituencies on Fridays, and scheduling additional sitting Fridays for private Members’ Bills in 2019, with no regard to what pressures might exist at that time, could cause avoidable inconvenience. This motion is a proportionate way to deal with this being a longer Session, and I encourage the House to support it.

[Mr Speaker]

I should notify the House that I have selected both of the amendments on the Order Paper—the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz]

I join the Leader of the House in her good wishes to everyone taking part in Pride weekend. We are in the business of equality for everyone. Perhaps you need to wear a rainbow tie next week, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I will probably not require any encouragement.

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business. She made no mention of the specific debates that I asked for last week on the High Court judgments concerning the plan for clean air and the benefits cap. She also made no mention of Opposition days, the last of which was in January. She made no mention of when she will schedule the debate on the statutory instrument on tuition fees, which the Opposition prayed against. That is particularly important in view of the latest Institute for Fiscal Studies report, which states that students will graduate with average debts of £50,800 after interest rates on student loans are raised to 6.1% in September, and points out that such interest rates are very high compared with current market rates. The report goes on to state that with their

“higher principal debt, students…from the poorest 40% of families now accrue around £6,500 in interest during study.”

The First Secretary of State said in a speech earlier this month that there is

“a national debate that we need to have”

about university tuition fees. I do not know where he was from 3 May to 8 June, but he actually got an answer: a minority Government. Will the Leader of the House please honour the parliamentary convention and let us debate that statutory instrument? It seems as though young people are being rejected by this minority Government.

May we have a debate on early-day motion 63, on the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, which has so far been signed by 124 hon. Members from all parties?

[That this House believes it has a moral duty to ensure that there is a fair transition for women born on or after 6 April 1951 regarding their pensions; recognises the need for a non-means tested bridging pension that will secure the financial stability of those affected by the 1995 and 2011 Pension Acts and compensation for those at risk of losing in the region of £45,000, creating a fairer pension system for all; and calls on the Government to bring forward transitional arrangements to provide pension certainty for the women disproportionately affected by this system.]

The debate in Westminster Hall yesterday was totally oversubscribed—it was standing room only—so will the Leader of the House find time to debate this injustice to 1950s women, or are 1950s women also rejected by this minority Government?

So far, the financial black hole includes the £1.5 billion for the deal; the £2 billion hole in the public finances over the next five years left by the national insurance U-turn; the concession that was, quite rightly, made last week in support of women in Northern Ireland, but which not been costed; and the extra money that many Secretaries of State are asking for, such as the £1 billion for education and the money asked for by the Health Secretary. The financial black hole is getting bigger. The Government announced in the Queen’s Speech that they will have three Finance Bills over the course of this Parliament, so will the Leader of the House say when we will have the summer Finance Bill? The Treasury has suggested such a Bill—that has certainly been picked up by the shadow Treasury team—unless, that is, there is to be no debate in Parliament, but just an announcement in Manchester in October.

Guess who said:

“tell others who’ve got their own opinion to shut up…There is a sense you have at the moment of everybody doing their own thing…Nobody actually asserting very clearly what they want to do in the national interest…We can’t go on living from hand-to-mouth in this sort of shambolic way.”

It was the former Tory party chairman Lord Patten, and this is why he said it. This is the response on 3 July to a written question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West):

“The government’s manifesto includes a free vote on the Hunting Act 2004, but we are not planning to bring forward a free vote in this session.”

That is a U-turn. On free school meals, a Minister responded this week that the Government have decided it is “right to retain” the existing universal infant free school meals provision. That is a U-turn. On grammar schools, the Secretary of State for Education, again in a written answer to my hon. Friend, has confirmed:

“There was no education bill in Her Majesty’s Most Gracious Speech, and therefore the ban on opening new grammar schools will remain in place.”

That is another U-turn. On the triple lock on pensions, which the Government wanted to scrap by 2020, they have made another U-turn. On the winter fuel allowance, the Government’s planned means-testing has been dropped, which is another U-turn. Everything in their manifesto has been dropped; there is no policy. What is left? Oh yes, “strong and stable”—I think that is another U-turn.

Mr Speaker, you will remember that the Prime Minister was billed as the second incarnation of another female Prime Minister, whose nickname, for those of us who can remember it, was TINA—“there is no alternative”. We in Her Majesty’s Opposition—here we are—say: there is an alternative.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

My right hon. Friend and I have worked for a very long time on representing her and my constituents in every way we possibly can. My constituents, just as much as hers, have grave concerns about the impact of HS2 as it passes through the Chilterns and South Northamptonshire, and all the way along the route. I am extremely sympathetic to her calls, but she knows as well as I do that there is a commitment to HS2. The Bill for phase 1 has received Royal Assent, but we will of course continue to look at what more can be done to provide mitigation and compensate all of our constituents during the construction phase.

[Mr Speaker]

As the Leader of the House knows, lots of my constituents are very hacked off about the matter as well.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing what passes for the business for next week. I join her in wishing well all those who are participating in Pride week during the next few days.

There were no votes this week. There are not going to be any votes next week, and there will probably not be any votes during the week after that, so there will be no votes before we get to the summer recess. This is quickly becoming the zombie apocalypse Parliament where the Government undead wander the streets of Whitehall looking for brains, only to discover they have all left the country because of Brexit, like everybody else. I do not know how much longer the Government will be able to pad out the business with uncontroversial Bills and measures, but at some time the will of the House will have to be tested once again.

There will, however, be votes next week—thank goodness—because we will all be deciding who the Chairs of Select Committees are to be. I declare an interest in that matter. It is good to see the Select Committees up and running, but what on earth is happening with Standing Committees of this House? We have already passed a couple of Bills on Second Reading—I know they will be taken in a Committee of the whole House—and there is another Second Reading debate next week. We must have a conversation and discussion about Standing Committees, because they are important in passing legislation. I looked at the arithmetic and figured out that there should be nine Conservative Members, seven Labour Members and two SNP Members on a Standing Committee, giving no one an overall majority. That is my understanding, but the Leader of the House can correct me if I am wrong. When will a motion come to the House, and when will the Standing Committees be up and running?

I very much support the shadow Leader of the House in calling for a full debate on the WASPI issue. Westminster Hall was packed to the gunwales yesterdays, with so many Members of Parliament wanting to represent their female constituents born in the 1950s. We have to have the debate here on Floor of the House. I have noticed that there is a cooling in the mood of Conservative Members about the issue, as they recognise this injustice. We saw the £1 billion bung go to the DUP. Let us have a debate here on the Floor of the House, where Members can put the case.

Lastly, it is a year ago that we got the Chilcot report. You will remember, Mr Speaker, that we debated it for two days. Today, Sir John Chilcot said that Tony Blair was not “straight with the nation”. Is it not time for a parliamentary Committee to investigate this properly and take appropriate action against the former Prime Minister?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to clarify who is responsible for dealing with the increasing problem of urban foxes, about which I have had huge numbers of complaints recently? No one takes responsibility. I am not suggesting, Mr Speaker, the setting up of a Vauxhall hunt, but I am seeking to satisfy and help those of my constituents whose lives in their homes are being made intolerable by foxes. What can be done, and who takes responsibility, other than people saying, “They’re lovely”?

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that the more ubiquitous the hon. Lady is in the Vauxhall constituency, the more terrified the foxes will be.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Yes, Mr Speaker, I was going to say that the foxes have a cheek going to Vauxhall, given the hon. Lady’s views on them; it is very brave of them.

There are very strict rules on wildlife in urban, as well as rural, areas, and keeping the fox population down is an important issue. I suggest that the hon. Lady write to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Gosh: just as we are talking about foxes, who should come into the Chamber but the Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox). How very timely.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Given the number of terrorist acts carried out in the UK by people who were prevented from going to the middle east, may we have a statement from an appropriate Minister setting out the arguments for and against preventing would-be adult jihadists from travelling abroad and keeping them at home, when we know that they cannot all be monitored at home around the clock?

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

To the apparent envy of some of his hon. Friends, I call Mr Alan Brown.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. In my short time in this place, so far I have seen the Secretary of State for Scotland fail to get any money from the Exchequer for open-cast coal restoration, while he has done nothing to get any money for the Ayrshire growth deal, and now we have seen Scotland completely bypassed in the deal with the DUP. We think the Secretary of State for Scotland should resign. Can the Leader of the House make a statement outlining his personal achievements for Scotland and why she thinks he should continue to represent Scotland?

Points of Order

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware that I requested an urgent question following the discovery at my advice surgery last Friday that the Home Office hotline for MPs had been due to shut that day at 5 pm and not to reopen until after the general election. I later discovered that that was the practice for a number of Government hotlines, which are mechanisms that enable MPs—as you know, we are Members of Parliament until next Tuesday—to get justice for their constituents.

Following that request, my office got a telephone call from the Cabinet Office saying, “Please withdraw it. We don’t really want to answer this.” I did not accede to that request, and what seemed to happen thereafter is that a whole load of hotlines started reopening. I quite understand why you did not grant my request for an urgent question, Mr Speaker, because it seems that just asking you had a result. As a champion of the Back Bencher, will you use your best efforts to make sure that the original plan to cut off this service to Members of Parliament does not occur until after this Parliament is dissolved?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. The Leader of the House is in his place and, notwithstanding the right hon. Lady’s excoriating remarks about the Government, it may be his wish to clarify the matter as he thinks fit. I can say only that I will always do my best for Back-Bench Members.

As the right hon. Lady has announced her intention to leave the House, perhaps I can wish her great good fortune, health and happiness in all she goes on to do. I am very conscious that she and I entered the House together 20 years ago, and we have come to know each other well over the past two decades. I say with feeling, best wishes and good luck.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Lidington)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It might be for the convenience of the House if I were just to clarify that the understanding I have from the Cabinet Office is that there were some technical problems with one or two lines at the end of last week, but it was never, and certainly is not, the intention of the Government that these rules should be applied at this stage. They will of course come into force, as is normal, at the Dissolution of the House, when all Members cease to have the position of being a Member of Parliament.

[Mr Lidington]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The position is exactly as I set out in response to the point made by the right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart).

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that will prove to be adequate in the coming days. I am most grateful to the Leader of the House for what he has just said, and I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan).

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Pursuant to what the Leader of the House said about our late and esteemed colleague, Jo Cox, I advise the House that the memorial to her had been scheduled to be installed in the Chamber next month. That date fell within what will now be the election campaign, and therefore a rescheduling is essential. The matter was discussed by relevant colleagues, the Jo Cox Foundation and me yesterday, and it is fully intended that the installation will take place very soon after the start of the new Parliament.

[Mrs Gillan]

Notwithstanding my advanced years, I appear to have gained no more wisdom, because I wish to ask the Leader of the House for a debate on my and his favourite subject, and no doubt yours, Mr Speaker: High Speed 2. We need an emergency debate on HS2 next week, because in evidence to the Transport Committee yesterday, the boss of HS2, David Higgins, indicated that its failure to consider conflicts of interest led to the fiasco of its key contractor, CH2M, withdrawing from a £170 million contract. I want to know who will take responsibility for that, especially as this is a massive project—the largest infrastructure project in this country. We need to examine whether senior management are fit for their roles and should be in charge of such large amounts of taxpayers’ money at a time when we will be away from this place and unable to scrutinise them. May we have an emergency debate on HS2 next week?