Business of the House (26 February)

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I inform the House that I have not selected the amendment in the name of Mr Christopher Chope.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the hon. Member for Christchurch gives way, I gently note that quite a lot of rather noisy private conversations are taking place on both sides of the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman must be heard—[Hon. Members: “No.”] Indeed, he must be heard with courtesy. I think the hon. Gentleman was giving way.

[Mr Bone]

Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the House that one reason why we are having this short debate—and possibly a Division—is to stop us debating important private business between the hours of 7 pm and 10 pm tomorrow night? What we are doing tonight is trying to prevent the House from sitting late tomorrow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

Whatever. It is late at night. The comment from the Opposition Front Bench is spot on. That is what happens late at night when we are trying to discuss important business. That is why we should not be debating private business late tomorrow night. I am thankful for that helpful sedentary intervention.

There is a serious principle here: we are reducing the scrutiny of an important Bill and removing the fixed time at which private business is heard, and simply for the convenience of the Executive, not that of Parliament. We are reducing scrutiny and removing certainty, and that is against the interests of every Member sitting here tonight. [Interruption.] Members might boo and grunt because this is going on, but I notice that most of them are members of the Executive. In my view, they are not necessarily here representing Parliament; they are representing the Executive.

While we have a very nice and benign Government, this is probably okay, but I ask the Leader of the House to imagine what the other lot would do if they were sitting on the Government side of the House. What sort of nasty things could they get up to? They would then refer to what is happening here tonight as the precedent.

The whole point of this debate is to stop us sitting late tomorrow night. I hope that when the House divides—[Interruption.] In fact, I hope that the House does not divide, because I am sure that the Leader of the House, having heard these short arguments, and the much more powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, will withdraw the motion.

[Mr Speaker]

Does the Leader of the House wish to respond? He is not obliged to do so, but he can.

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As the House will know, I almost invariably call everyone at business questions, and I would like to do so again today, but it is a day of Backbench Business Committee debates, which are well subscribed, so we are under heavy time pressure. I therefore appeal to colleagues to ask single short questions, and to Leader of the House to give pithy replies.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

Unpaid carers provide vital care to frail, ill and disabled people, but thousands of them are being hit by the benefits cap and the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill. Many will also be hit by the bedroom tax and the loss of council tax benefit, and we now find from the updated impact assessment for personal independence payments that 10,000 carers will lose their carers allowance and 5,000 fewer will qualify. May we have a debate on why this Government are hitting unpaid carers with their reforms, rather than exempting them?

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Come on—get a move on. If not a gallop, at least a canter.—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

There should be no chuntering from a sedentary position. Less of the wit or attempted wit.

[Mr Lansley]

That was not even an attempt to be funny. I will talk to my colleagues in DEFRA and in the Department of Health, which is responsible for the Food Standards Agency and has given evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I will ask them to ensure that the House is kept up to date. Following previous business questions, I will ensure, too, that before the House rises for the short recess next Thursday, we are updated in respect of the situation in Mali by means of a written ministerial statement.

The hon. Lady asked about the timetable for the Defamation Bill. That is a matter for the other place, although I understand that it is intended that Third Reading there will take place on 25 February. It will, of course, arrive here thereafter. The hon. Lady will recall that in that debate in the other place, my noble Friend Lord McNally made it clear that we expect to be able to publish proposals relating to the response of the Leveson recommendations in the course of next week. We are doing so actively on a cross-party basis. It is precisely because we want to secure cross-party agreement that we are acting together in that way. To that extent, the amendment passed in the other place was clearly premature. I hope that, when people see the proposals as they come forward, they will recognise that we are actively seeking to ensure that we achieve the recommendations and principles set out in Lord Leveson’s report, albeit in a way that continues to respect the need for a press free from political interference.

Curiously, the shadow Leader seemed to ask me to seek from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a Budget statement prior to the Budget statement. We will settle for one Budget statement; that will be more than enough. It will give the Chancellor the opportunity to reinforce the simple fact that we in this country have credibility behind our fiscal stance and, indeed, our monetary policies. The new Governor of the Bank of England is giving evidence to the Treasury Select Committee right now, but we all know from what was said by the OECD and others internationally that the commitment of this coalition Government to the reduction of the structural deficit and to the achievement of fiscal consolidation has allowed for our active monetary policy, notwithstanding the international pressures, and has gained us the credibility that has clearly contributed to the confidence that has brought 1 million more jobs since the election and low interest rates, which are of central importance, not least to mortgage holders.

The hon. Lady might have explained the Labour party’s policy to colleagues—a confused complaint about borrowing yet wanting to borrow more—but it was responsible for the most appalling inheritance of debt.

The hon. Lady asked about last night’s motion on the sitting of the House on 22 March. The reasoning is very straightforward. There is a calendar—the House has welcomed this fact—that has allowed Members and the House service to plan ahead. The calendar was very clear that the House would rise for the Easter recess on Tuesday 27 March—I hope that date is right—and colleagues will have planned on that basis. Following the Budget on 20 March, accommodating both the requirements of the Budget debate and the needs of the Backbench Business Committee for a pre-recess Adjournment debate will require the House to sit on 22 March. I hope Members will recognise that that is for the benefit of the House, enabling business to be secured, including Back-Bench business.

I join the shadow Leader of the House in congratulating the archaeological team from the university of Leicester. Let me add, on a personal note, that I remember visiting the archaeological team with my daughter. She subsequently went to Southampton university, but at that time she was considering reading archaeology at Leciester, and perhaps she now regrets not having done so.

It will, of course, be a matter for the university of Leicester, in due course, to deal with the question of the re-interment of Richard III, but, like the shadow Leader of the House, I hope that the interest generated by the discovery of his remains will enable those who are interested in the history of this country—not least young people—to recognise what a significant date 1485 was in that history.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As per usual, dozens of Members are seeking to catch my eye. I simply remind the House that there is a further statement to follow—from the Secretary of State for Education—and then two debates under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. There is real pressure on time, and I appeal to colleagues, whom I am keen to accommodate, to ask short questions, and, of course, to the Leader of the House to provide us with pithy replies.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

May we please have a debate on the future of pedlary in the United Kingdom? During last night’s debate on opposed private business, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), announced that the period for consultation on the proposed reform of the laws on pedlary and street trading was to be extended by a month. A debate would enable Members in all parts of the House to contribute to that consultation. Pedlars are the ultimate in micro-businesses, and we need to ensure that there is no danger of their being regulated out of existence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Connarty]

I was not called.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is not complaining, but I simply mention in passing that he was a relatively late entrant to the Chamber. No offence was committed, but there were other Members who had been here longer whom I thought were more deserving at the time.

[Michael Connarty]

I was not complaining; I was making a joke.

[Mr Speaker]

Indeed. He is a good-humoured fellow.

[Mr Lansley]

I am accustomed to questions to me being described colloquially as “poor man’s Prime Minister’s questions”; I did not realise they had become “poor man’s BIS questions”, as well—perhaps poor man’s every kind of question.

I will secure an answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question from my ministerial colleagues. However, we are very clear—in contrast with the record of the last Labour Government—that there will be no programme of post office closures under this Government. I have seen in my own constituency the confidence that gives, particularly to villages where post offices have temporarily shut down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

May I congratulate the Chair on invoking Standing Order No. 40 last night, which I think we all enjoyed, thus expediting a whole series of votes called by only a dozen or so Members? Some of them seemed to take sport in delaying the passage of Bills against the will of the House. This has affected the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill, costing the council hundreds of thousands of pounds and delaying the Bill for about three years. May I therefore ask for an urgent review of the voting process for private Bills?

[Mr Speaker]

I was waiting for the appearance of the word “statement” or “debate”. I am most grateful for the compliments of the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure he wants not just a review but a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I appeal to remaining colleagues to ask single, short supplementary questions without preamble, and to the Leader of the House for brief replies. We might then get on to the next business.

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises a matter that is recognised in constituencies across the country as a compelling one that we must do something about. The Government have also been clear about that. He might reasonably have said that the previous Government failed to deal with the issue in 13 years. We have reached the point at which 45,000 older people a year are having to sell their homes to pay for care. The former Prime Minister Tony Blair said that that was a disgrace and that it would stop, but his Government did not act. They had a royal commission, but they did not act on it.

After the election, the coalition Government appointed Andrew Dilnot and his colleagues to undertake a commission. They reported in the summer of last year. We have reiterated that we are determined to implement their principles. As the mid-term review made clear, the House can look forward to further announcements in the coming weeks about how we will do exactly that.

[Mr Speaker]

Today is a first for me. It is the first time in my 16 years in the House that I have observed the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) occupying the middle ground of the Chamber. I call Mr Jeremy Corbyn.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I am obliged to you, Mr Speaker. I have always felt that travel broadens the mind.

The Leader of the House will have heard the request from the shadow Leader of the House for a debate on the situation in north Africa. May I ask the Government, once again, to table a votable motion on the increasing deployment and involvement of British armed forces in what could become an unpleasant, long, drawn-out, guerrilla-like conflict into which this country, inevitably, will be sucked deeper and deeper? The precedent for holding a vote was set before the Iraq invasion in 2003 and it is now the norm that the significant deployment of British troops in a war requires the consent of Parliament. I hope that the Leader of the House will recognise that and that the Government will table an appropriate motion for debate, so that many of us can express our concerns about the depth of our involvement.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

When anyone moves to Britain with their car they are required to register the vehicle with the Driver and Vehicle and Licensing Agency, and to have UK plates on that vehicle within six months. That is to ensure that the vehicle is taxed, insured and roadworthy, and so that the driver can be prosecuted for any speeding or parking offences. By its own admission, the Department for Transport has said that those rules are not working, and with 2 million EU residents permanently residing in this country, there are potentially tens of thousands of vehicles on our roads illegally. Will the Leader of the House use his charm, influence and position to pioneer a joint statement by the Department for Transport, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, and say what Her Majesty’s Government will do to solve the problem?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. So far, the erudition of questions has been equalled only by their length. I am sure we will have a characteristically snappy answer from the Leader of the House.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend made an important point very well. I will indeed get in touch with my colleagues and use what influence I have to encourage them, if not to make a collective statement, certainly to respond to him on behalf of the Government and to inform the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

In my experience, when we are discussing wild animals in circuses, and when we are discussing horsemeat up in Westminster Hall and elsewhere, animals seem to be in politics all the time.

Royal Assent

[Mr Speaker]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Trusts (Capital and Income) Act 2013

Statute Law (Repeals) Act 2013

Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act 2013

Disabled Persons’ Parking Badges Act 2013.

European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Act 2013

Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 5.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment 23 and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

[Mr Lansley]

Lords amendments 5 and 23 on the boundary review were inserted into the Bill in the Lords, despite being outside the scope of the Bill. This was clearly done with the intention of preventing the implementation of the boundary review, which was agreed by this Parliament in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011.

The effect of Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu would be to provide for the boundary review to proceed and for the Boundary Commission’s recommendations to come into force, taking effect at the next general election, without a requirement for any further vote in either House of Parliament.

I move this motion as Leader of the House in order to facilitate the debate. In the first instance, Members of this House will decide whether to disagree with the Lords in their amendment, the effect of which would be to put off the boundary review until 2018. If Members approve that motion, we would then go on to vote on whether instead the current boundary review should go ahead without further interference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he is being just a tad disingenuous in claiming—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Although the list of proscribed words ceased to exist some time ago, I would say that the right hon. Gentleman is on somewhat dodgy ground in using that word. In view of his known dexterity in the use of language, I exhort him to deploy another term to make his point.

[Mr Straw]

I thought perhaps the word “tad” would ameliorate the effect. Would “dissembling”—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accuse somebody of behaving disingenuously, it is small comfort for that person to be accused of behaving only a tad disingenuously.

[Mr Straw]

Is “dissembling” acceptable?

[Hon. Members]

No!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not be held back for long.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would you accept a motion that the right hon. Gentleman be no longer heard?

[Mr Speaker]

No.

[Mr Straw]

Would the Leader of the House accept that he has put only a part of his argument when he justifies the measure on the grounds of seeking equality of electorates? That principle is agreed across the Chamber. The objection to the 2011 Act was that it was a wholly partisan measure, breaking a clear convention that this kind of measure be agreed across the parties, to arbitrarily reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600. That is the real reason.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I thought that the hon. Gentleman’s thirst might have been quenched, but the truth, as we all know, is that he is unquenchable.

[Michael Fabricant]

I shall take that as a compliment, Mr Speaker. You will know that I am very naive about what goes on on the Back Benches, as it has been a long time since I was last here—apart from the past two weeks, of course. I have been asking questions of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about the views expressed by the Deputy Prime Minister, who, sadly, cannot be here today. Do you have the power to call the Deputy Prime Minister to the House to explain why it is suddenly no longer a point of principle for him to vote for a measure that he voted for only a couple of years ago? Perhaps you could explain that to me, Mr Speaker. I am curious.

[Mr Speaker]

No, I do not; no, I could not; and no, it would not be right for the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who is a decent fellow, to seek to embroil me in partisan politics. That would be unworthy of him, and I feel sure that he would not knowingly behave in an unworthy way.

[Sadiq Khan]

May I begin by congratulating the Leader of the House on the sheer audacity of his speech? His criticism of the House of Lords is breathtaking. Only six months ago, he and his party were saying that—I paraphrase—the House of Lords was so perfect that it did not need any reform, yet here he is today, arguing that it is so inept and incompetent that it cannot be trusted with this issue, despite all the Lords’ experience and the impartiality that the Conservatives claim comes from being unelected. You really could not make it up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that this is a point of order rather than a point of enormous wit—we shall discover.

[Kevin Brennan]

It is not for me to judge, Mr Speaker. During the excellent speech by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), he was intervened on a couple of times and was referred to as being the “noble” Member. Can you clarify whether or not there are any noble Members in this House? Or are we just all common?

[Mr Speaker]

All right hon. and hon. Members in this Chamber are equal. That is perhaps not the answer that the hon. Gentleman seeks, but it is the answer that he is going to get, especially as his attempted point of order was just that—attempted. It was many things but it was not a point of order.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in the debate and to follow the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who made a striking and powerful speech. I, like other Members, particularly enjoyed his last point.

I am pleased to be able to speak in opposition to the Government motion and in support of Lords amendments 5 and 23, and I welcome the cross-party support for those amendments in the other place and in the Chamber today. The other place has done democracy a great service by highlighting the link between this Bill and the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, because, contrary to the point made by the Leader of the House, the impact of these two pieces of legislation together would have been unfairly to reduce the representation of our great cities and urban areas.

A number of Government Members have talked about the simple principle of fairness, and the Leader of the House talked about the disparities in the system. There are disparities, but they are not the ones that he talked about. If I were selected by my party members again, the proposed boundaries would benefit me electorally. Nevertheless, they are unfair and undermine our democracy because of the enormous mismatch between population and registered voters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Chloe Smith]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 7.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 10, 11, 1 to 4, 6, 8, 9 and 12 to 22.

[Miss Smith]

With your leave, Mr Speaker, I shall—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Will right hon. and hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber—[Hon. Members: “We’re celebrating!”] Will Members who are leaving the Chamber for whatever purpose please do so as quickly and quietly as possible so that I can call Minister Smith to speak to the motion? She should not have to fight to be heard, and we wish to hear her.

[Miss Smith]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall speak to Lords amendment 7 and, with your leave, I shall speak to the other amendments in the group as well. It might therefore take me a few minutes to complete my speech, as it covers all the amendments.

Lords amendments 7, 10 and 11 will enable voters waiting in a queue at close of poll to be issued with ballot papers and to vote, even if the time of close of poll has passed. Following debates on the subject, the Government have decided to accept the principle of the amendments introduced in both Houses, to ensure that people are able to exercise their right to vote if they are already in the queue at 10 pm on polling day. The measure has attracted cross-party support in both Houses, and the Government agree with the sentiment behind a change in the law to enable voters to vote.

The Government did not accept amendments previously tabled on this subject, and have instead introduced their own group of amendments to address some of the issues identified by the previous amendments. For example, the amendment tabled by Lord Pannick did not apply to Northern Ireland and would have resulted in an inconsistent position for voters across the United Kingdom.

In tabling their own amendments, the Government remain concerned that all potential consequences for other aspects of electoral law of any new provisions relating to close of poll should be dealt with at the point at which the new provisions take effect, to reduce the risk of unintended consequences. I will not dwell at length on those amendments; suffice it to say that the term “close of poll” is used in a number of electoral provisions, including those that determine when exit polls may be published and the point by which postal votes must be returned. Some of those provisions attract criminal penalties and it would not be right if the impact of a change were not considered and addressed, to avoid a position in which people might fall foul of the law inadvertently. The amendments therefore provide for a proportionately limited power that will allow the Government to make any such consequential changes that might be required on commencement.

Let me make it clear that, although the Government are introducing these amendments, we remain of the view that proper planning by returning officers must be the first priority to reduce the risk of queues forming. However, this change to the law will provide an effective back-stop to supplement that planning. The Government have also consistently argued that administrative points remain to be addressed, and we will work closely with the Electoral Commission and electoral administrators on the best way to implement the amendments for voters. However, putting aside those points of detail, I hope that we can agree to support this change to the law for the benefit of voters.

The other amendments in the group relate to the transition to, and operation of, individual electoral registration. That is the core of the Bill, through which we aim to tackle electoral fraud and the perception of fraud. Under IER, electors will be required to register individually, rather than by household. In that way, we will be moving to a system in which individuals will have to provide information to verify their application, and so take responsibility for their registration to vote. That will modernise our electoral registration system, facilitating the move to online registration and making it more convenient for people to register to vote. Our aim is to tackle electoral fraud, increase the number of people registered to vote, and improve the integrity of the register.

It falls to me to rebut a few points made in the previous debate, as they properly relate to the subject matter in this group of amendments. I was concerned to hear the Labour Front-Bench team whipping up scare stories. It felt to me that they had little else to say, and their opportunism led them to introduce some confusion into our debate. It is important to note that the figures occasionally quoted, as I understand it, by the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), who is not in his place, related to an opt-out that was included in the draft legislation published in June 2011, and not to the transition to individual electoral registration in general. The hon. Gentleman quoted the concern of the Electoral Commission about completeness, potentially leaving, in his citation, 16 million people unregistered. Those comments were, I suggest, a misquotation of the Electoral Commission’s chairwoman, Jenny Watson. She clarified her opinion in a follow-up statement. I hope that is of help to the House.

It is also important to rebut very firmly further comments of the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd. Sadly, I see that he is still not in his place, after having made the lurid suggestion that the Government are engaged in voter suppression. I cannot stand against that more strongly. I think it would be helpful if I noted that the Electoral Commission has been calling for the introduction of IER since 2003. It supports that introduction and believes

“it is the right thing to do because the current system is vulnerable to fraud; and it is right that people take responsibility for their own votes. The ‘household’ registration system means there is no personal ownership by citizens of a fundamental aspect of their participation in our democracy—their right to vote.”

I seek to support that right to vote. I am concerned that the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd, who is still not in his place to engage in debate, made such lurid comments.

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that, from now on, questions and answers will relate exclusively to the business of the House for next week and the provisional business for the following week.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Does the Leader of the House have any views on what will happen in next week’s local government by-elections following the Prime Minister’s speech on Europe? I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has granted a debate on Europe so that all the party leaders can make their position quite clear—with the Prime Minister saying we want an in/out referendum, the Leader of the Opposition opposed to it and the Liberal Democrats facing both ways.

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is heavy pressure on time today, as I have already indicated, making it imperative that contributions from Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike are brief. Moreover, I remind the House that, in accordance with convention, hon. and right hon. Members who came into the Chamber after the Leader of the House had begun his statement or who exited during it, should not stand and expect to be called.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will know that from January next year 29 million Bulgarians and Romanians will potentially have access to the UK under the free movement directive. This Government are at risk of exhibiting institutionalised torpor on this issue. There has been no proper liaison with local authorities, no proper analysis of the likely numbers coming here and no analysis of whether we can vary the free movement directive to protect our core public services and our employment market. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Prime Minister to look at this matter as a matter of urgency, because we have only 11 months left?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I do not want just a statement on Europe; I want a full debate on Europe in Government time. In the old days, we used to have four debates a year before European Councils and four statements after European Councils so that the Government’s policy could be scrutinised by the House. I know that they were pretty tedious affairs, with single transferable speeches delivered time after time, not least by myself. It would be good if we could have a bell fitted behind the Speaker’s Chair, so that every time the word “Europe” is mentioned all Pavlov’s dogs on the Government Benches could start slobbering—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

There is nothing disorderly about that remark, but I leave Members to make their own assessments on the question of taste.

[Mr Lansley]

You are absolutely right, Mr Speaker—there is a distinction between what is in order and what is charming, and that was charmless. I also noted that following oral questions earlier, the hon. Gentleman did not take the trouble to apologise for being completely wrong in suggesting that I had incorrectly informed the House about what was in the ministerial code, but be that as it may.

I think it is a tremendously positive innovation that a substantial proportion of the House’s time is not in the gift of Government but is available to the Backbench Business Committee. That includes time that was previously allocated to a range of general debates for such purposes. If the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about the need for a debate on Europe, he should get together with other Members and go to the Backbench Business Committee to seek it.

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 20th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Last week, Mr Levesconte, the landlord of the Royal Oak pub in Shrewton, left the country with £29,000 that had been saved in the local thrift fund by 60 families. This week, due to the generosity of the people of Shrewton, south Wiltshire and beyond, the full sum has been acquired through donations. Will the Leader of the House comment on the vibrancy of the big society in south Wiltshire and make a statement on the safety of investing and saving in banks, building societies and credit unions, as opposed to thrift funds?

[Mr Speaker]

I think that what the hon. Gentleman wants is not so much a comment but, in conformity with House procedures, a full statement.

[John Glen]

I did ask for that in the second part of my question.

[Mr Speaker]

Ah! I neglected to follow the hon. Gentleman’s logic right through. We are all deeply indebted to him.

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot offer a statement at this time, but I can say that I share my hon. Friend’s concern that people recognise the intrinsic merits of saving in institutions, not least guaranteed institutions such as banks, building societies and credit unions. On a positive note, those in Wiltshire are, as my hon. Friend has said, clearly a generous community who care for each other. That is a central part of not only the big society, but the kind of society that we all want to live in. I was equally touched by the way in which so many people have responded, in like fashion, after the wickedness of thefts from Great Ormond Street hospital by recognising that they want to contribute to look after others.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Leader of the House and colleagues, and wish him and all hon. and right hon. Members a merry Christmas.

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is a curious phenomenon in the House that when there are fewer Members standing—and fewer are standing today than is often the case at business questions—exchanges seem to lengthen to absorb available time. May I gently exhort the House to be pithy because there is a statement to follow and other business. If we can treat these matters succinctly, that would help.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

May we please have a statement on undiagnosed cleft palates in new babies? The Royal College of Surgeons has found wide variations across the UK. In North Thames, only 42% of cleft palates are identified at birth, whereas in Oxford the figure is 94%. The Government really must do better by mums and babies on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman will know of my interest in cancer and that I am generally supportive of the idea that doctors and clinicians should make decisions about local commissioning. Last night, however, I finished reading “Securing equity and excellence in commissioning specialised services”, a document produced by the NHS Commissioning Board. It is 227 pages long, and I was stunned to learn that there are 130 specialised commissioning services groups and a series of subgroups, as well as the NHS Commissioning Board, four regional directorates and 10 sub-regional directors inside 27 local area action teams. I am unclear how introducing more bureaucracy and new layers of staff—who are appointed, not elected—will lead to an increase in the provision of local services.

[Mr Speaker]

We are ever so grateful to the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt), who might wish further to pursue this matter by the well-known device of an Adjournment debate.

[Mr Lansley]

The commissioning of specialised services through the NHS Commissioning Board is a direct replacement for the previous regional or national specialised commissioning. I have to tell my hon. Friend that the level of bureaucracy she describes is significantly less than there used to be under regional and national specialised commissioning. The total activity in the NHS Commissioning Board, compared with the responsibilities it has taken on, is reducing by about 30% or 40%; I am talking about the number of people employed and engaged in that kind of central commissioning activity. People with some of these specialised conditions want specialised commissioning on a national basis, because it gives them much greater assurance about the consistent application of the clinical guidelines.

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As usual, a great many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I remind the House that there are two further statements to follow and, thereafter, two important debates under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. If I am to get anywhere near accommodating the level of interest, brevity from Front and Back Benchers alike will be imperative.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Can the Chancellor come to the Dispatch Box and tell the House what consideration he has given to the impact of the rise in the pensionable age on those in receipt of permanent health insurance payments under schemes that were designed to end at the current retirement age?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

As I understand it, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was perfectly happy to answer questions on matters for which he is responsible. He was not willing to answer questions relating to the views of Ofqual, as it is an independent regulator. I think that is perfectly fair.

[Mr Speaker]

If there were an intention to raise the matter of a possible contempt it would have to be done formally through the Standards and Privileges Committee, so we will not dwell on that now. I simply mention that, and I thank the Leader of the House for what he has said.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Last week, the Prime Minister visited Gloucester to see at first hand the work of the unique tri-service centre, managing the most difficult floods the country has seen since 2007. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the emergency services and partner agencies on their work in handling that difficult situation; in recognising the great improvements to flood defences made by the Environment Agency, Severn Trent and local councils; and in calling on the insurance sector to play its full part in making sure that every home is protected?