Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A large number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, but it is highly unlikely that I shall be able to accommodate them all today. There is a statement on Afghanistan to follow and two debates under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. I seek to maximise the number of contributors, so there will be a premium on brevity from the Back Benches and Front Benches alike.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the future of the Shoeburyness-to-Fenchurch Street line, which is currently under tender? Specifically, can the Government give my commuter constituents reassurance that good rolling stock will not be replaced with old, dirty rolling stock without air conditioning?

General Matters

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend must be a mind reader, because I was just about to mention the fact that the Environment Agency has been so good, especially in warning people and getting the warnings through early so that people could take action, where possible, to secure their properties with sandbags. A large flood happened in Axminster where there was a blockage across a railway under a large culvert. The water backed up and there was immediately a huge amount of flooding. In the long run, we need not only to get good flood warnings in place, but to make sure that the culverts are clear and the rivers properly dredged so that we can get rid of the water when it comes.

I accept that when 4½ inches of rainfall comes down in less than 24 hours it is very difficult to handle, but we have to realise that the drainage channels and those rivers are all there for a purpose. That purpose is to drain. Yes, they are very pretty when the water level is kept high and they are allowed to silt up. Indeed, it all looks lovely until the rain starts to come down and we cannot drain the water away fast enough. I hope that Ministers and the Environment Agency will think seriously about that.

We also experienced floods in Uplyme. Down by the village hall, culverts were blocked and, again, there was a great deal of flooding. Fewer properties were involved, but one was badly flooded when a stream came down from the hill. Again the rocks came out and blocked the pipe, and water cascaded through the building. As I have said, it is not possible to solve all the problems, but I think that we need proper drainage channels with proper grilles.

Because I do not possess the ability of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West to raise numerous matters during a short speech and am capable of raising only two or three, I shall now confine myself to raising the serious issue of the price of milk and the problems faced by dairy farmers in my constituency. The constituency contains a great deal of grassland, much of which is dairy farming land in the Blackdown hills and on the edge of Exmoor. The dairy farmers are not receiving the cost of production, and we need to do something about it, because they are experiencing a real problem. When 2,500 dairy farmers from all over the country come to a meeting in London—at Methodist central hall—the strength of feeling is clear. We cannot stand by while supermarkets drive the price of milk down by using it as a loss leader, as a result of which processors and farmers are squeezed.

Members have asked what future young dairy farmers have. I think that they have a good future, but we must ensure that there are more co-operatives. Farmers must come together if they are to have more power in the marketplace. We must also think about future markets. The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice), has told us that when he went to China he saw many milk products from France, Germany and the Netherlands, but none from Britain. I think that when we have an expanding market in China, it is essential for us to send our milk and milk products over there.

If we do not export enough dairy products and create a demand throughout the country, and if too much liquid milk is flooding the market, it is very difficult to keep the price up for farmers. Farmers in my constituency need a future. They spend a great deal of money themselves throughout the community, and they need to be supported. I hope that the Minister will do something about that, and will establish contracts so that farmers can make a decent living.

[Mr Speaker]

I intend to call the Deputy Leader of the House at 6.40 pm. I now call Mr Martin Vickers.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), I want to raise a matter that is particularly important to northern Lincolnshire. It involves a number of rail issues.

Although yesterday’s announcement of investment in the east coast main line is valuable and welcome, towns such as Cleethorpes, which lie off the main line, also need serious consideration. It is essential for the increased capacity created by the forthcoming investment to allow either the main franchise holder or an open access operator to provide the much-needed direct passenger service from Cleethorpes to London.

Twenty-five years ago, there were four direct trains from Cleethorpes to King’s Cross. They ran via Lincoln and Newark, although I think it more likely that the Scunthorpe-Doncaster route will be used in future. If the potential for economic growth is to gather pace—and the Government’s creation of enterprise zones constitutes recognition of that potential—we must improve connectivity with the capital. That will also boost the tourism economy. As Members will know, Cleethorpes is the jewel in the crown of the east coast resorts.

I was encouraged by what the Secretary of State said yesterday about ensuring that UK-based producers benefit from the construction phase. I hope that everything possible will be done to ensure that, for instance, Tata Steel—which is based in Scunthorpe, where many of my constituents work, and whose most profitable line is the rail track that it produces—benefits from the contracts. We should think not just of those travelling on business, but of commuters and holiday travellers. Tourism is a vital source of revenue for struggling coastal communities. A seminar at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills last week highlighted the need for connectivity to these resorts.

In the Cleethorpes constituency, we have Immingham dock, which on Sunday will celebrate its centenary. About 23% of rail freight as measured by tonnes starts or finishes in Immingham. That highlights the importance of improved rail access. The local council estimates that by 2020 50% of containers arriving in the UK will be what the industry refers to as high-cube containers. We must therefore upgrade the gauge from the existing W8 to W10 and W12.

Finally, may I mention the inquiry currently being conducted by the Office of Rail Regulation into higher access charges for freight? This could be detrimental not only to the port of Immingham, but environmentally. If we push more freight traffic on to the roads, that will increase CO₂ emissions and be more damaging to our infrastructure, but, more importantly, it will reduce the quality of life of local residents.

I shall conclude my remarks there, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

We are extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I call the Deputy Leader of the House.

Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)]

I beg to move,

(1) That a Committee of this House be established, to be called the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, to consider and report on—

(a) professional standards and culture of the UK banking sector, taking account of regulatory and competition investigations into the LIBOR rate-setting process;

(b) lessons to be learned about corporate governance, transparency and conflicts of interest, and their implications for regulation and for Government policy;

and to make recommendations for legislative and other action.

(2) That Mr Andrew Tyrie be Chair of the Commission.

(3) That Mark Garnier, Mr Andrew Love, Mr Pat McFadden and John Thurso be members of the Commission.

(4) That the Commission have leave to join with any committee appointed by the Lords to consider the said matters.

(5) That the Commission may hold meetings under the provisions of paragraph (4) of this order at any time after the Lords has agreed to appoint a committee.

(6) That the Commission shall, except as provided for in this order, follow the procedure of a select committee of this House.

(7) That the Commission shall have power—

(a) to send for persons, papers and records;

(b) to examine witnesses on oath;

(c) to appoint specialist advisers;

(d) to invite specialist advisers (including Counsel appointed as specialist advisers) to examine witnesses;

(e) to adjourn from place to place;

(f) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; and

(g) to report from time to time.

(8) That the Commission shall have power to appoint sub-committees to consider matters specified by the Commission within the terms of this order and a subcommittee shall have—

(a) the powers in paragraph (7)(a), (b), (e) and (f); and

(b) the power to invite specialist advisers appointed by the Commission (including Counsel appointed as specialist advisers) to examine witnesses;

and the quorum of a sub-committee shall, subject to paragraph (12)(b), be one member of this House.

(9) That the Chair may report to the House an order, resolution or Special Report as an order, resolution or Special Report of the Commission which has not been agreed at a meeting of the Commission if he is satisfied that he has consulted all members of the Commission about the terms of the order, resolution or Special Report and that it represents a decision of the majority of the Commission.

(10) That the quorum of the Commission shall be two members of this House.

(11) That, whenever this House shall stand adjourned other than to the next day, any report, Special Report, order or resolution agreed to by, or evidence taken or received by, the Commission, including any under paragraph (9) of this order, may be published or printed under the authority of this House, shall be deemed to have been reported and shall be reported when this House next sits.

(12) That, when the Commission operates under the provisions of paragraph (4) of this order, the following provisions shall apply—

(a) the quorum of the Commission shall be two members of this House and two members of the House of Lords;

(b) the quorum of any sub-committee shall be one member from either House; and

(c) the power of the Chair to report under paragraph (9) may also be exercised with the Chair’s agreement by a member of the Commission who is a member of the House of Lords.

(13) That the costs of the Commission shall be assessed by the House of Commons Commission from time to time and shall be paid by Her Majesty’s Government for the credit of the House of Commons (Administration) Estimate.

(14) That the Commission shall report on legislative action no later than 18 December 2012 and on other matters as soon as possible thereafter.

(15) That a message be sent to the House of Lords to desire their concurrence.

On 5 July, the House debated professional standards in the banking industry for a full day and resolved to establish a Joint Committee of the two Houses on that matter. As I said in that debate, I do not think there is any disagreement between the Government and the Opposition on what we need to do, which is to sustain in the UK a strong, vibrant, transparent and more accountable financial sector that commands international confidence.

The motion before us is the result of negotiation following the House’s decision to establish a Joint Committee. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) for the work that he has undertaken while also chairing a very active Select Committee. I also thank Her Majesty’s Opposition. Following the debate, it was essential that Parliament was seen to be acting in the best interests of the public in resolving the issue before it, and that could happen only if the Joint Committee were supported not only by the parties in Government but by the Opposition. I am grateful to those who have added their signatures to the motion.

I do not intend to detain the House for long. I want to make five points, spending half a minute on each. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the Leader of the House makes his five points, to which I wish to listen carefully, may I gently say to the House that he should be heard? Any Member should be heard, but the Leader of the House is a very senior Member, and Members should not be sitting chuntering to each other; they should show him some courtesy, which they all learnt at one time.

[Sir George Young]

As I said, I have five points and will spend half a minute on each one.

First, the process to establish the Commission is not following the normal process for establishing a Joint Committee. The Commission, if established tonight, will be able to begin its work immediately and to meet during the recess. It is my hope that before the other place rises, it will also establish a Committee of an equal number of members to act jointly with the Commission that we are establishing tonight.

Secondly, the Commission is being established with powers that are already inherent in our parliamentary system. It will also have the novel power to invite special advisers, including counsel appointed by the Commission, to examine witnesses. I do not think that that will become the modus operandi of other Select Committees, but it will give the Commission the teeth that it needs to carry out its important investigative role quickly and effectively.

Thirdly, it is proposed that

“the Commission shall have power to appoint sub-committees to consider matters specified by the Commission”.

Unusually, the sub-committees will have a quorum of one. I have discussed that with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester. The purpose is to allow a single member of the Commission to consider a specific issue, for example a technical matter, and to send for papers with a view to informing the wider Commission. That will feed into the Commission’s work and allow it to tackle a broad-ranging subject in a compressed time frame.

Fourthly, paragraph (13) of the motion directs the House of Commons Commission to assess the costs arising from the Parliamentary Commission to be paid by the Government. As the Chancellor said in the debate on 5 July:

“I commit to giving it any resources it needs to do its job.”—[Official Report, 5 July 2012; Vol. 547, c. 1136.]

I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), who sought reassurance during our debate on 5 July that the Commission should not raid

“the staff and resources of other Committees.”—[Official Report, 5 July 2012; Vol. 547, c. 1149.]

Fifthly and finally, the motion sets a deadline for a report on legislative action of 18 December. That will include pre-legislative scrutiny of the banking reform Bill and any recommendations of the Commission’s inquiry that require a legislative vehicle in order to be implemented. The December deadline will give the Government time to consider any recommendations in time for the introduction of the banking reform Bill, which is planned for January 2013. If the Commission cannot complete all its work by 18 December, we will expect it to report on the other areas as soon as possible thereafter.

We have in this Parliament the skills, expertise and mandate to do the job. I am confident in the ability of the new Commission to rise to the challenges that confront us and to address the central issue at stake: restoring confidence in the UK banking industry. I commend the motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

It appears that this Commission, which was originally described as a very narrow one, is broadening so that, as the Leader of the House said, it can now look at particular matters with sub-committees of one, and there are suggestions that it should broaden into criminal prosecutions.

The issues remain as they were, but the evidence is changing and will continue to change. That is the problem with setting up ad hoc committees. Just in the past hour, further e-mails have come from the Bank of England that have some significance for matters that have already been looked at, looked at again and looked at a third time. Those e-mails are significant to what the Treasury Committee looked at the first time, and doubtless information will continue to emerge.

This is a moving feast, and the problem with a moving feast is that setting a time limit when one does not know what will happen next can lead to a certain momentum, which can be in the wrong direction. The problem is not that it is an arbitrary time limit—any time limit is arbitrary—but that it could be an irrational one.

Tomorrow in the United States, a new court action is being initiated not on LIBOR but on other market manipulation by banks, and specifically a British bank. We will see what happens as that court action proceeds, but simply examining LIBOR, and especially only the one bank in which what has gone on has been partially exposed, rather misses the point about market manipulation by investment banks over the past 10 years.

Even within the context of LIBOR, we have only just reached the stage of seeing some of the market manipulation that happened, and only in one bank, Barclays, which has received bad publicity. There is far more to be revealed about that, and I am certain that there will be more surprises to come in the next day, week or two weeks. Those surprises may well continue to flow.

Even in the case of Barclays, the manipulation of LIBOR is one tiny part of the allegations of market manipulation and anti-competitive work. A swathe of evidence is beginning to emerge, and more people are now prepared to speak out about how a range of markets have been manipulated in a range of ways. Derivatives have been used as the basis of that manipulation, but in fact it is much more complex than that. At its heart, as Barclays has said, was the making of a quick profit. In the past two weeks, courts in Canada have specified in a non-LIBOR-related case where the judge has pronounced that it was manipulation for short-term profit on an anti-competitive basis.

That is just one bank. No one can answer—the question was not answered by the Financial Services Authority today; perhaps it is not in its remit to do so—what the contingent liability is for Barclays. That is a small concern, and of significance to people working for the bank, people who have shares in it, and the wider economy, but it is clear that the largely state-owned banks, not least the Royal Bank of Scotland but also Lloyds TSB, have been doing the same thing. The problem that we will face is not just the issues of criminality that may or may not emerge. Proving a criminal case in any of that is fiendishly difficult—both finding the person who has committed an act and finding a victim so that a case can be taken. If law suits, beginning in the United States but spreading elsewhere, start to succeed, the amounts of money that have been fiddled are so great—because of the instruments that were used—that the British taxpayer may face a huge, unquantified bill, and we do not know when it will arrive. The future of Barclays is somewhat in question.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is indulging in scene setting—offering the House the context—but I would politely suggest that he will wish to turn to the proceedings and composition of the intended Committee. If it is helpful to him, I gently remind him, in relation to the motion, that he has 15 paragraphs from which to choose when deciding how to focus his remarks.

[John Mann]

I thank you for your guidance, Mr Speaker. My initial remarks related to the remit of the Committee, rather than its composition, which is frankly an irrelevance compared with the problems of the moving feast of its remit.

The remit has been set so vaguely that it can incorporate anything and everything. We will face the economic consequences when the partially state-owned banks are hit in the same way. These issues are entirely out of our control—indeed, they are entirely out of British control. The American authorities are two years ahead of the British authorities, and have taken a lead, so they will dictate the time scale for what comes next. Whether the considerations are legal or political—there are elections coming up, so there may well be more of a political imperative to be seen to be doing things—they will have grave consequences for these financial institutions and the British taxpayer.

That is why although it may well come up with worthy and credible recommendations, the investigation cannot match the task that it has been set. Because of the course of events and the changes that will happen, arbitrary time limits are, by definition, self-defeating. There is another problem that goes alongside that, and it concerns the other options available to look at those matters. I am pleased that the Leader of the House appears to have given a commitment, and I urge him to clarify it, that no staffing resource will be removed from the Treasury Committee in that period of time. If that is the case, that is a significant step forward. If the Treasury Committee were mothballed at precisely this time, the ability of the House to respond to fast-moving events would worsen significantly.

The Treasury Committee has a heavy workload. Today, Commissioner Barnier was supposed to appear before the Committee in relation to the 17 EU directives and draft directives relating to financial services on the books at the moment. It is essential that this House properly scrutinises and takes a view on what happens with those directives, but that has not been happening—it is a key role that the Treasury Committee needs to fulfil.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point and I agree with him, but I do not intend to go through all the previous debate on this issue—interesting though it would be to do so—because I am sticking to the detail of what is in front of us, however badly worded it is. There is, however, clearly a case for saying that if the Treasury Committee had been allowed to carry on this work, it could have done so as effectively as this Joint Committee. I am sure that the five Members from the House of Lords who are as yet unknown and unnamed will bring great wisdom to this Joint Committee, but if the House of Lords wants to look into matters, it can look into them. This is the elected Chamber, and for this elected Chamber to hand over some of these powers of scrutiny to an unelected Chamber seems a retrograde step, which will come back to haunt us in future.

Once a precedent has been established and it suits the Government, it is likely to happen again—and this was a Government initiative. I am rather surprised that the Opposition Front-Bench team, perhaps looking forward to being in government themselves, have been seduced into accepting this way of undermining the historic, developed and improving role of this House to scrutinise. That, I think, is partly what is at stake here, if this becomes the way of doing business in this House.

I do not see how a Select Committee, denuded of half its members, can in any way work as effectively as a Select Committee operating with all its members. That is the reality of what will happen, and we need to be aware of the unintended consequences that might come from a potential eurozone crisis and other problems emanating from Europe that conflict across the work of this Joint Committee—and are wrongly not referred to within it—because proposals from Brussels are, rightly or wrongly, a fundamental part of the equation, affecting decisions made by this House and by the banking industry in this country and across the world. That aspect has been ducked by the creation of the Commission, which will create unhealthy confusion in the debate.

What should have happened? The remit given to the investigation, which should have been carried out by the Treasury Committee, should have been far broader—[Interruption.] An hon. Gentleman says “Boring” from a sedentary position, but this is not boring. For example, seven investment banks colluded to rig the price of the Kraft takeover of Cadbury’s. That is the real scandal that underpins the profits in investment banking. In some areas, there is ferocious competition, but in the vast majority of investment banking, there is no competition whatever. That is the scandal that created the culture that led to the LIBOR rigging. An investment bank called in by a company to advise on a sale or takeover has so much knowledge of the workings of the company that it has the ability to manipulate the market to determine how things will go. That is the fundamental weakness in the system of investment banking. The implications for British manufacturing and manufacturing elsewhere in the world—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have noted the hon. Gentleman’s references to investment banking, but I fear—very considerably—that he is now going to proceed to discuss the state of British manufacturing and any relationship between the banking and manufacturing sectors. He is gyrating between referring to the terms of reference of the Commission and matters of composition, and then talking about matters that are quite outwith the terms of the motion, which ought to afford him adequate scope. I feel cautiously hopeful that he may be nearer to the end of his remarks than to the beginning.

[John Mann]

I have so far got to paragraph (1)(b) of the motion, which I shall quote, so that you are assured, Mr Speaker, that my remarks are directly pertinent. Paragraph (1)(b) refers to

“lessons to be learned about corporate governance, transparency and conflicts of interest, and their implications for regulation and for Government policy”.

That is precisely what I was talking about in relation to how investment banks operate. The lack of transparency, conflicts of interests and the narrow remit—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is public spirited and trying to be helpful, but he should not misunderstand the terms of the motion. The paragraph to which he refers underlines the importance of the inquiry in learning those lessons. It is not necessary or feasible for the House to do so tonight. It would be a triumph of optimism over reality for him to suppose that the House would do so courtesy of his speech, no matter how compelling it is.

[John Mann]

Thank you for that guidance, Mr Speaker. I am merely outlining my objections to the lack of breadth in the remit given to the Commission.

My final questions on paragraph (1)(b)—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] I am surprised hon. Members are so keen to stay and hear the debate, given some of their sedentary comments. It would be helpful if the Leader of the House confirmed unambiguously that the principles behind the setting up of the Commission will in no way—practically and in reality—undermine the ability of the Treasury Committee to meet as often as it has over the past year to discuss subjects that it chooses to investigate. It would help if he confirmed that it can call the witnesses it chooses and that it will have the access to the staffing resource and expertise that it currently has. If he can give those assurances, I will not seek to divide the House on the motion. I look forward to hearing from him.

Sittings of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That no change be made to the time at which the House sits on a Monday.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to take the following:

Motion 2—Sittings of the House (Mondays) (1.00 pm to 8.30 pm)—

That this House should meet at 1.00 pm on Mondays, with a moment of interruption of 8.30 pm, and accordingly the changes to Standing Orders set out in the table be made, with effect from Monday 15 October 2012.

[Mr Knight]

I commend the Procedure Committee’s report on sitting hours—HC330—to any Member who has not yet read it because it will be helpful in determining the decisions to be made during this debate.

I have been surprised over the past two weeks to see reports in certain sections of the press suggesting that MPs were demanding shorter hours, and that at a “time of national crisis”, we were seeking to cut back on the number of hours that we work. That forced me to re-read my Committee’s report. As I suspected, I discovered no such proposition in it. In fact, the Committee concluded that the hours we spent at Westminster were broadly correct and should continue. I guess that the headline “MPs resolve to work as hard as ever but may choose different hours” does not have the same attraction for a sub-editor, even if it is accurate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Many Members wish to speak, and a few minutes—not many—will at some stage have to be allowed for the Front-Bench Members’ contributions. There is not a formal time limit, but I appeal to Members to make brief contributions, in the interests of their colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is no formal time limit on speeches, but there is now heavy pressure on time. I want to accommodate colleagues, so I call for brevity. We will be led, with great distinction, in this exercise in succinctness by a very senior Member of the House: Mr Jack Straw.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who has done a great service to the House and been very considerate in speaking with such brevity. I know that we will now hear two extremely brief speeches from the two Front Benchers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have only 30 minutes left and several Members are still seeking to catch my eye. I appeal to colleagues to make very short speeches to allow others to contribute.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) for all his Committee’s work and the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) for her eloquent speech. Notwithstanding the considerable progress made since the right hon. Lady first came into Parliament, we still have a long way to go before this institution is fit for the 21st century.

As I walked into the Chamber today, I noticed the snuff box still provided for MPs by the entrance. That is perhaps just a faintly amusing anachronism, which falls into the category, mentioned by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), of traditional things that are not harmful. I would say that our late sittings fall into the category of things that are anachronistic and harmful. They are harmful to the health of Members—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I appeal to Members to show courtesy to those who are speaking, rather than wittering away as though their own conversations were somehow more important. Sit quietly—and if you are not interested in doing so, get out. We can manage without you.

[Caroline Lucas]

I was saying why I thought late hours were harmful. They also give out the impression that things here are suited to the workings of a gentlemen’s club, and that gets in the way of efficient working.

I hope that Members will take this opportunity to bring the Commons out of the snuff age and into the 21st century. We should not be afraid of change because we will all benefit from a more modern House of Commons. When I say “modern”, I fully appreciate that on some days the hours that help some families closer to Westminster will be different from the hours that help families in constituencies further afield.

We have to take on a system that takes the mix of constituency distance from Westminster on board, and there is a solution for Tuesday and Friday that could be an improvement for all Members. I shall come to that after commenting briefly on the other days. I share the commonly held view that the distances that many Members need to travel are a sound reason for leaving Monday’s hours as they are. Ideally, I would like a slightly earlier start time on Wednesday, but I could certainly live with an 11.30 start if Members felt strongly about it. As for Thursday, many Members share the view that the earlier we start and finish the better, so that those whose constituencies are far away at least have a chance of staying for important debates and getting home at a reasonable hour. I hope that the 9.30 to 5 o’clock Thursday will be adopted.

I turn to the case for the earlier start time of 11.30 on Tuesday, which I support. I want to address concerns that that is, apparently, just a measure designed for the benefit of MPs with constituencies near Westminster. To many who are promoting the change, it is about being people-friendly, allowing people control over how they organise their lives and work, and having greater certainty over how we arrange our working lives. Yes, it will directly help family access for some; as long as that does not make it worse for others, we should not be saying, “If it doesn’t help me, why should I help you?”

We should be mindful that, whenever possible, we also have a duty to lead by example with good working practices. Late hours are not good for House of Commons staff who have to clear up afterwards and keep the place running. We are also allowing an unhealthy working culture to prevail. If we do not reform where we can—and Tuesday is the obvious candidate for reform—we send the message that hard-working people are not entitled to a healthy work-life balance. People, and even MPs, are entitled to that. We are often characterised as taking long holidays when in fact most of us are working hard in our constituencies.

The issue is about creating a House of Commons that is both effective and people-friendly. Of course, family arrangements often differ depending on how far away from our constituencies we are here in Westminster, but that can be addressed if we combine an earlier start on Tuesdays with moving private Members’ Bills to Tuesday evenings. Starting Tuesday’s business at 11.30 am and giving PMBs the Tuesday evening slot would have three benefits. It would give PMBs the prominent midweek slot they deserve, it would deal with the problem of filibustering, and it would allow Fridays to become an official constituency day.

We need to send out a very clear message that the House of Commons is a reasonable place in which to work—a place where people can work even when they have family commitments both far and near. That is why we have to make this place a more friendly place for women. The House of Commons is 81% male, and that is a shocking figure. If we frame our sitting hours around modern life instead of allowing the continuation of a system based on hangovers from the snuff-snorting era, we can send out the important message that we are not happy with the status quo of 81% men and want to be a place where the population is properly represented. Changing sitting hours will not solve everything, but it will make things better. I very much hope that by supporting motions 4 and 9 we will take the opportunity to make this place more contemporary and even just slightly more appealing to those who are staggeringly under-represented.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

I acknowledge the point that has been made, but contrary opinions have been expressed by others who were around in that period. Indeed, some Select Committees appear now to be—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Again, a large number of rather excitable private conversations are taking place. We owe Members the courtesy of a fair hearing.

[Paul Blomfield]

As has been pointed out, there are Select Committees that meet earlier and that seem to manage to arrange for witnesses to attend.

The argument for earlier Tuesday sittings, as well as standing on its own merits, provides the opportunity to move the debates on private Members’ Bills to Tuesday evenings. As a Back Bencher, I believe in the importance of our having the opportunity to drive change through the House. Although I acknowledge the other options that the Chair of the Procedure Committee shared with us, moving those debates to a Tuesday evening would give many of us a greater opportunity to attend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

We have heard a number of insightful contributions and a number of anecdotes. I do not mean to add to the latter and want to add only to the former.

I make one, simple case: it is perfectly appropriate for this Parliament to express an opinion once about its sitting hours. That is not disproportionate. If all hon. Members would choose a different way to serve their constituents, surely the maximum flexibility is the best route to go down. Changing the moment of interruption on a Tuesday night would make a small difference, but it would be significant if we are to serve our constituents in the way they expect.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Under the order of the House of Monday, I am now required to put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motions relating to sittings of the House. I will put them in sequence. If any of the motions to maintain the status quo for Mondays to Wednesdays is agreed to, the alternative motion relating to that day will fall and will not be called. Before I put the Question on motion 1—Sittings of the House (Mondays) (No Change)—I remind the House that if the question is agreed to, motion 2 will fall.

--- Later in debate ---

16:03

Division 49

Ayes: 267

---

Labour: 141
Conservative: 93
Liberal Democrat: 25
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Independent: 2
Scottish National Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 233

---

Conservative: 139
Labour: 67
Liberal Democrat: 19
Scottish National Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

[Mr Speaker]

We come now to motion 5. [Interruption.] Order. It would help the House if it was clear what it was voting on. Once again, I remind the House that if the question on motion 5 is agreed, motion 6 will fall.

Sittings of the House (Wednesdays) (No change)

Resolved,

That no change be made to the time at which the House sits on a Wednesday.—(Mr Knight.)

[Mr Speaker]

As the House’s short-term memory will enable it to recall, motion 6 now falls. We therefore come to motion 7. I remind the House that if this motion is negatived, the sitting times of the House on Thursdays will be unchanged.

Sittings of the House (Thursdays) (9.30 am to 5.00 pm)

Motion made, and Question put,

That this House should meet at 9.30 am on Thursdays, with a moment of interruption at 5.00 pm, and accordingly the changes to Standing Orders set out in the table be made, with effect from Monday 15 October 2012.

--- Later in debate ---

16:30

Division 51

Ayes: 205

---

Labour: 129
Conservative: 39
Liberal Democrat: 26
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 3
Scottish National Party: 2
Independent: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 228

---

Conservative: 167
Labour: 46
Liberal Democrat: 14
Scottish National Party: 2

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the next Back-Bench business debate, on the motion relating to VAT on air ambulance fuel payments, which may continue until 7 pm. In a moment I shall call the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) to open the debate. I feel sure that Members leaving the Chamber will wish to do so quickly and quietly so that we can have an orderly transition to the next debate and the hon. Gentleman can be heard with the courtesy and attentiveness that we would all wish.

Local Services (Planning)

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The media have announced that there will not be a programme motion. According to Standing Order No. 63, by rights the Bill should not be committed to the whole House, but should go to a Public Bill Committee upstairs. Will that procedure apply in this case?

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think that Standing Order No. 63 applies in this case, given that the programme motion has been tabled. I am happy to take further advice on the matter, and to consider whether the hon. Gentleman’s point is valid—

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

—but help may be at hand, both for the hon. Gentleman and the House, courtesy of its Leader.

I beg the right hon. Gentleman’s pardon. I thought that he was seeking to respond to the point of order, but no. However, we shall hear from him very soon.

Let me simply say that Members take a huge interest in the debate on Second Reading of the Lords Reform Bill. Almost 90 right hon. and hon. Members have applied to speak, and that fact is reflected in the six-minute time limit. Obviously, there is no time limit on Front-Bench speeches, but I am sure that Front Benchers will tailor their contributions accordingly. I also ask Members please not to come to the Chair inquiring whether, and if so when, they will be called. We will do our best to accommodate as many of them as possible.

House of Lords Reform Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before I call the first Back-Bench speaker, may I, for the benefit of the House, now respond substantively to the point of order raised with me earlier by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)? Standing Order No. 83A provides that, where notice is given of a programme motion, Standing Order No. 63 shall not apply. That means that, if the Bill is read a Second time this evening, it will not be possible for Ministers or others to move to commit the Bill, whether to Committee of the whole House or elsewhere. The Bill will remain uncommitted for the time being. I hope that that information is helpful to the House.

The six-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches now applies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Very few Members of this House think that the House of Lords is perfect in every way, but we do not want radical overhauls and an elected House of Lords, as suggested by this fundamentally flawed Bill.

Governments are currently created by single elections—general elections—and the reviewing Chamber acts as a check and balance without—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There are a lot of very noisy conversations taking place in the Chamber. These are serious matters, and I think we owe the hon. Gentleman whom I have called first the courtesy of a fair and decent hearing.

[Gareth Johnson]

The reviewing Chamber acts as a check and balance without the necessity of playing to the gallery. The contradictory nature of the two Houses of Parliament ensures that genuine revision of legislation takes place, and it is that essential difference between the two Houses that the Bill seeks to eradicate.

I oppose the principle of an elected second Chamber, but the details of the Bill are also wrong. Fifteen-year terms fly in the face of democracy. Even Robert Mugabe has not tried a term of office for that length of time. Fifteen years without any possibility of facing the electorate gives a mandate to that senator without any kind of accountability. The wealth of expertise that exists in the Lords will go, to be replaced by people who really wanted to be Members of this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Lloyd]

I can answer that by moving on to my observations about the contributions made yesterday by some of my Opposition colleagues, which I also found surreal. Let me go through them. [Interruption.] Talking of coalition, whatever the challenges of two parties working together as we are in this coalition, which I actively support because of the state of the economy, it is interesting to look at the coalition between Blair and Brown in your 13 years, which was internecine every week. I take no lessons on that from Opposition Members.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House is lapsing into improper use of language. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is referring to my 13 years. Debate goes through the Chair. I think he is referring to Opposition Members, but he should avoid using the word “you” in this context.

[Stephen Lloyd]

Thank you, Mr Speaker; I stand corrected and apologise.

Another point I discovered yesterday was that when it comes to debating the House of Lords, reactionary views are not restricted to my right-wing colleagues, as I heard some of them coming from Opposition Members. Even though the Labour party has supported House of Lords reform for many years and some Labour Members spoke with great passion, insight and conviction, I was struck by the unadulterated hatred towards the Lib Dems that was expressed in a number of speeches—[Hon. Members: “Aah.”]—for the temerity to try to bring in an elected second Chamber at last. It was quite incredible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman has accused the Deputy Prime Minister of being disingenuous, but he has also cited an instance in which, he says, he persuaded members of his Front Bench to change their minds and support a referendum. Is he telling our Front Benchers that they should do the same, but should then change their minds again and break their promise?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I say to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who is immensely versatile in his use of legitimate parliamentary language, that he might wish to reconsider his use of the word “disingenuous”? He has a very versatile vocabulary, and I feel sure that he can deploy another word.

[Mr Straw]

I am happy to do so, Mr Speaker. I will substitute the word “unconvincing”.

I hope that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) will concede that I was persuaded by the arguments advanced in this place in favour of referendums. I am now urging the Deputy Prime Minister to do the same.

As I was saying, the fact that those on the Front Benches may agree on this measure does not trump the need for the British people to decide. Indeed, it strengthens the imperative for the British people to have the final say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

My comments are not intended to be judgmental about the many Members of the other place who do such good work; instead they are directed at how those Members are selected. The current method of selection is not appropriate for the 21st century. Labour reduced the number of hereditary peers by 90% back in 1999, but we need to go further: we need to abolish appointed peers and have a properly democratic and elected second Chamber.

As time is short, I shall confine my comments to two issues. The first concerns the bishops, who are not representative of all Christians in the UK, never mind those of different faiths or no faith at all. The Church of England is not the established Church of the United Kingdom. The Church in Wales was disestablished in 1920, in Northern Ireland there has not been an established Church since 1871 and the Church of Scotland Act 1921 acknowledged that the Kirk had never been the established Church of Scotland and so could not be disestablished. Many countries specifically separate Church and state, even countries with a clearly dominant religion, such as Italy or Spain.

Equality legislation in this country outlaws discrimination between men and women, yet for this reformed 21st century second Chamber, the Bill proposes to include bishops from the Church of England, which has fudged on equal rights. After years and years, yet again this week the Church is fudging on women bishops, and we have had nothing but exceptions and excuses, and a ridiculous amendment—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady, but hon. Members should calm down. Those who have just spoken—and it is great that they have—should extend the courtesy of a decent hearing to the person who is now speaking.

[Nia Griffith]

We have had nothing but excuses and a ridiculous amendment that would allow parishes that do not accept women bishops to request a male bishop. This would not be allowed in other workplaces and would be a disgrace even within a non-established Church or religion, but it is utterly deplorable that a so-called established Church chooses to flout the spirit of the law of the land. It is totally unacceptable to give 12 places with voting rights in a reformed 21st century second Chamber to bishops in an organisation that still does not give equal rights to women to allow them to become bishops and which has actually contemplated an amendment that would undermine their authority.

I oppose reserving the 12 places for bishops of the Church of England in the second Chamber because it is not the established Church of the whole UK, because the appointment of bishops does not conform to the spirit of equality legislation and because it is high time that we separated Church and state. If this is really a reform for the future, it is a good opportunity not to include bishops. I ask the Government seriously to consider that issue.

I also have considerable concerns about the proposal in the Bill to appoint, rather than elect, 20% of the Members of the reformed second Chamber. What system of appointing Members could command the confidence of the public? Whoever does the appointing and whatever the procedures, it would be difficult to eliminate all trace of suspicion. We are also told that appointing Members brings in expertise, but what sort of expertise and for how long? Someone who is an expert today might not be a leader in their field in 15 years. There are other ways in which Parliament could bring in experts to advise when necessary, so what is the point of appointing 20% of Members?

Another odd argument is that not electing part of the new second Chamber would preserve the primacy of this House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said, there are many ways of defining powers and processes that would ensure the primacy of this House. I would far prefer a 100% elected second Chamber, but this at least is a start, and even though there might be flaws in the current proposals, I shall be voting for Second Reading.

Business of the House (11 July)

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

(2) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business), the Private Business set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means shall be entered upon at the conclusion of the backbench business on that day, and may then be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours, after which the Speaker shall interrupt the business; the business may be entered upon after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(James Duddridge.)

[Mr Speaker]

As Mr Chope was speaking when the debate was adjourned, I feel sure he will want to continue his sentence where he left it off.

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A very large number of hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, but as the House will know and as I simply remind Members, there is a defence statement to follow and thereafter a heavily subscribed and very important debate. Therefore, it may not be possible for me to accommodate all contributors at business questions in the way that I would usually intend, but maximising the number of contributors depends upon brevity, which will now be exemplified, I know, by Miss Anne McIntosh.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend allow time for a debate on the health and social care White Paper and its implications for community hospitals?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

I am sure that the hon. Lady has raised the matter with the newly elected mayor of Leicester, who has responsibility for the transport budget—[Hon. Members: “Walsall!”] Walsall, sorry. I will raise the matter with the appropriate authorities and see whether there is any way in which we can make progress on that important crossing.

[Mr Speaker]

As far as I am aware, the hon. Lady bears no obvious resemblance to her brother!

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

Yesterday, I spent seven hours sitting in a meeting, carefully listening to the decision from the Safe and Sustainable review of children’s heart units. There was a clear disregard for a fundamental principle of the NHS constitution, namely patient choice, as it was said that patients would be managed to use the Newcastle hospital and Lincolnshire patients were barely mentioned at all. In addition, the review goes against the Secretary of State’s recently stated four principles for the reconfiguration of services. This is a fundamentally important issue to many of our constituents, so please may I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that, at the very least, the Secretary of State gives a statement to the House?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am genuinely sorry to disappoint colleagues. This is a rarity; as the House will know, I like to accommodate everybody. However, there is heavy pressure on time, and we must now move on.

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I remind the House that questions on the statement must relate to the statement itself, and thus only to the implications of the change in business. They must not extend to the arrangement of business more widely, and certainly not to the issues of substance that will be the subject of the debate on Thursday. I hope that that is helpful to the House.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House ensure that on Thursday it will be in order to debate banking competition and the structure of the state banks, so that we can have a proper debate on banking?

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I assume that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) was seeking either a statement or possibly even a full debate on that important matter.

[Sir George Young]

I will raise with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions the interaction of entitlement to jobseeker’s allowance with the activity to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. I have indeed seen early-day motion 274, and I join the right hon. Gentleman in congratulating Emily, who is, I believe, a member of Sale Harriers and who provides a great example of the ability to triumph over disability and bullying. I think that the British team won 11 medals in Sweden, which bodes very well for the imminent Paralympics.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was present for Transport questions, but they would have provided him with an ideal opportunity to raise the issue. [Interruption.] If he is proposing a reduction in a particular form of taxation, perhaps he would like to suggest where the money might come from.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) has been chuntering from a sedentary position that he did not make that point at Transport questions because he was not called by me, but he was called this time, and I know that he is deeply grateful.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

May we have a debate on spinal muscular atrophy, which is the number one genetic killer of infants and small children? I am sure that the Leader of the House will join me in congratulating 24 of my constituents who are cycling from Le Mans to Olney to raise funds for my three-year-old constituent Maya Czerminska to buy the special equipment that she needs. May I simply ask the Government to redouble their efforts to tackle this appalling disease?