Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are short of time. May I appeal to colleagues to ask single, short—one sentence—business questions of the Leader of the House? This would be a dramatic breakthrough and of benefit to the House as a whole. I know that a fine example will be set by the hon. Member for New Forest East.

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

I was afraid that you were going to pick me, Mr Speaker. May we have a debate on the importance of in-patient beds in acute mental health facilities, given that those at Woodhaven hospital in my constituency face the possibility of closure, unless people write in urgently to the consultation that is under way?

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. As he says, a consultation process is under way to which I urge him to respond, although I am sure that he has already done so. I know that others will have heard our exchange and that if they share his concern, they also will write to the NHS trust.

[Mr Speaker]

I am pleased to say that they will also have heard the single sentence from the hon. Member for New Forest East, and I feel sure that they will have appreciated it.

[Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)]

Last week, on a visit to my local Remploy factory in Wishaw, I met some disabled people who are genuinely terrified that they are about to lose their jobs and see their factory close. Will the Leader of the House give time for a debate on that very serious subject?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

I hear what my hon. Friend has said. That matter was raised in Transport questions. We are reviewing the procurement rules to see whether British companies can compete on a level playing field with others when such contracts come up again.

[Mr Speaker]

Just in case I was unclear earlier, I ought to say that at no stage has there been anything wrong, irregular or in any way objectionable about the length of the Leader of the House’s replies. I was referring purely to the questions.

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

May we have a debate on the “Review into the Needs of Families Bereaved by Homicide” report issued by the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, so that this House can consider how its recommendations should be dealt with?

Points of Order

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week, this House was asked to debate, amend and agree the Health and Social Care Bill. We were asked to scrutinise that legislation with no updated information on the costs and consequences of the biggest reorganisation in NHS history, because the Government had promised a new impact assessment but had not published it before the debate. It was then smuggled out with no press statement the very next day and it shows that savings are planned at £2 billion less, it shows that the new economic regulator, Monitor, is set to have 600 staff at an average cost of £84,000 each and, most importantly to this House, on page three it shows that the Minister signed it off on 1 September, a full five days before the debate in this House. It is a disgrace that these facts were kept hidden from the House and the public before such a critical and controversial debate. In the light of page 447 of “Erskine May”, can you advise this House whether the Government have followed the proper parliamentary procedure and of what steps can be taken to stop such abuse in the future?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. He has made his point and it will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench. Although the release of such information is a matter for the Government rather than for the Chair, I can tell him and the House that I do attach importance to the timely provision of information to the House, which is both courteous to Members and helpful in their deliberations. It is fortunate for the right hon. Gentleman and the House that at the time of his raising his point of order—this may not be a coincidence—the Leader of the House was sitting on the Treasury Bench. The Leader of the House is as courteous a man as is to be found on either side of the Chamber; he attaches importance to these matters and though he may not wish to respond to the point of order now, I can assure the House that he will have heard it.

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

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to him for hearing it.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to a written question regarding Government policy on equality issues relating to gender-specific dress codes in the workplace, I was rather surprised when the Home Secretary replied outlining what she was wearing on the day in question—a grey trouser suit and some shoes from L. K. Bennett—and mentioned her personal preference for smart dress and her belief that such dress had never hampered her career. Intrigued, I inquired at the Table Office whether I could seek regular sartorial insights from Ministers via written questions. I was advised that because the choices Ministers make before leaving home, such as

“whether to wash, shave or wear blue underpants”

are entirely personal and are not part of their ministerial responsibility or subject to Government policy, it would not be in order for me to do so. Is it therefore in order for a Minister to answer an entirely orderly and serious question regarding Government policy on an issue that has been raised with me by a constituent with what is a frivolous, albeit fascinating, fashion commentary?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady will understand immediately when I say that I do not regard myself as an authority on fashion. In response to points of order, I think an appropriate humility and self-denying ordinance on the part of this Chair would be prudent and seemly.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Quite good ties though.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his sedentary intervention on the subject of ties, about which I do not intend to expatiate now or at any time from the Chair.

The hon. Lady kindly gave me notice of her point of order. What I would say to her, very seriously, is that the content of answers to parliamentary questions is a matter for the Government and not the Chair, and there are very good reasons, which will be immediately apparent to Members, why that should be so. The Chair cannot get into the business of acting as umpire or arbiter of the merit or demerit of a particular answer—only on the question of whether it is orderly. However, if the hon. Lady is dissatisfied with the answer, she should contact the Table Office to find other and perhaps further ways of pursuing the matter to obtain the satisfaction she seeks.

Police reform and social responsibility Bill (programme) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 13 December 2010 and 30 March 2011 (Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill (Programme) and Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall be taken at this day’s sitting in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.

2. The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.

TABLE

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

There was an opportunity on Tuesday to ask Treasury Ministers about the future of the staff at Cumbernauld, but I will raise that issue with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and ask him to write to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Speaker]

I must thank the Leader of the House and point out to colleagues that in 44 minutes consumed by Back Benchers in business questions, 51 had the opportunity to question and receive an answer from the Leader of the House. I thank him and all colleagues for their extreme succinctness and self-discipline.

Points of Order

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that this is an unusual time to seek to catch your eye on a point of order, but in view of the fast-moving events surrounding the allegations about phone hacking at News International, I thought that it would be helpful for the House to have clarity about any additional business this week. Ministers are minded to make representations to you that that the House should be recalled on Wednesday in order for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to come to the House to update Members on recent developments, and for hon. Members to have an opportunity to hold a full day’s debate on these issues. Mr Speaker, given that we want Parliament to remain at the centre of this debate, are you able to give an indication of whether you would be minded to grant such a request?

[Mr Speaker]

I am, and I will be. The Leader of the House has indicated that the public interest requires that the House should meet this Wednesday. It might be helpful to the House to say that, if I receive a formal request from the Government after the House adjourns tomorrow under Standing Order No. 13, I will appoint 11.30 on Wednesday as the time for the House to meet. The business to be taken at that sitting will be set down by the Government, and the Leader of the House has given a helpful indication of what that will be.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. First thing this morning, the Leader of the Opposition called for the House to meet on Wednesday, so I welcome the confirmation that we have just had from the Leader of the House that the Government will seek the recall of the House. However, given that events are indeed moving at a very fast pace, can we be clear on three matters? First, given the large and growing number of questions that now need to be answered by the Prime Minister concerning his judgment, it is essential that he lead the debate on Wednesday. Mr Speaker, have you been given any indication that he will do so, and of what form the debate will take?

Secondly, the Home Affairs Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee will tomorrow take very important evidence from Sir Paul Stephenson, Rebekah Brooks, James Murdoch and Rupert Murdoch. If those Committees produce reports overnight, can you confirm that the House will have a full opportunity to debate those reports and any recommendations as part of Wednesday’s business?

Thirdly, as there may be issues of parliamentary privilege that arise from Lord Leveson’s inquiry—for example, whether Parliament was lied to, or about the disclosure of material—have you had any indication from the Government, Mr Speaker, as to how they propose to handle matters of privilege in the inquiry’s terms of reference?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for that point of order. First, as far as the Minister fielded by the Government is concerned, that is a matter for the Government. The Leader of the House will have heard what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and will be at liberty to respond, after I have finished saying what I am about to say, if he so wishes.

Secondly, so far as the content of the business is concerned, I wait for the Government to decide upon their motion. Once again, it is for the Leader of the House to indicate, as and when he is ready to do so, to the House the proposed terms of the debate. Thirdly, I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that I again await further and better particulars from the Leader of the House, but I should certainly have thought that the reports and the consideration preceding such reports to which the shadow Leader of the House has just referred would be obvious material for consideration in that debate. If the Leader of the House wishes to say anything further at this stage, he is free to do so, but he is not obliged to do so.

The House should also be aware that at any stage between now and Wednesday, further and better particulars could be provided, and there will be a statement on Wednesday—and statements can come at a variety of times. The House will want to be conscious of that and be alert to the possibilities.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I was not proposing to take a long sequence, but I shall take a short sequence.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Is this not a rather unusual way of dealing with business when the House has not adjourned? Is it not normal to have a business of the House motion—on whether Parliament was going to extend its sitting—for the House to debate?

[Mr Speaker]

There are all sorts of things that are normal. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) might well see himself as the very national embodiment of normality and therefore a suitable judge of what is an example of the genre, but the fact that something is normal does not preclude alternatives. The Leader of the House is the person to judge these matters, and he has made his own judgment. If the hon. Gentleman wants a chat or a cup of tea with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, that is a matter for them and not for the Chair.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Further to the point of order. On 13 July, I received a reply to two parliamentary questions about meetings between Ministers and News International representatives, in which I was told that

“information relating to internal meetings, discussions and advice is not normally disclosed.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2011; Vol. 531, c. 340W.]

In his statement on the same day, the Prime Minister said that he would be

“consulting the Cabinet Secretary on an amendment to the ministerial code…to record all meetings with newspaper and other media proprietors, senior editors and executives, regardless of the nature of the meeting.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2011; Vol. 531, c. 313-14.]

What advice can you give me, Mr Speaker, about the contradiction between the answers to my parliamentary questions received on 13 July and the statement made by the Prime Minister on the same day?

[Mr Speaker]

My answer to the hon. Gentleman’s attempted point of order, which is really a point of debate, is that he should ensure that he is in his seat, perched and primed and ready to pounce with his question to the Prime Minister and, possibly, to make a contribution to the debate that will follow. That is a question and that is a speech that the House will eagerly await.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am taking people on trust here. Normally, points of order and further points of order would be taken later. I am rather anticipating that points of order will narrowly relate to the matters to which the Leader of the House has just referred. I know the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas)will not disappoint in that regard.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

I never cease to disappoint you, but this does indeed relate to named day questions that I put forward, to which I did not receive satisfactory responses from the Prime Minister’s office. Those responses contrasted with statements made direct to the press concerning meetings that the Prime Minister had. Is it in order for the press to receive details of meetings that are not provided to Members of Parliament in answer to parliamentary questions? Is that not something that the Prime Minister should come to the House to explain on Wednesday?

[Mr Speaker]

The business of the House for Wednesday is gradually becoming clearer and clearer, and I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman will want to raise the matters that perturb him on that occasion. I think we will leave it there for now.

Draft Financial Services Bill (Joint Committee)

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty]

I will shortly move on to the thrust of my argument and come to the issue of the complications or otherwise for the Committee. We do not seek to thwart the aspects of pre-legislative scrutiny, but we do object to the Government’s choice of one specific individual to sit on the Committee. As I said, this is one of the most important pieces of legislation we will have before us in this Session, and possibly in this Parliament. One point on which both sides of the House would genuinely agree is that over the past few years there was a failing in the scrutiny and regulation of the financial industry. We can argue about who was more to blame for that and about light-touch regulation, or lighter regulation still—[Interruption.] I hear the chuntering from various sedentary positions and, were I to stray too far into the previous Government’s financial regulation regime, I suspect that you, might pull me up on that Mr Speaker.

This is about probity. Ultimately, this comes down to whether or not somebody—I refer to the Standards and Privileges Committee’s report—who was found to have had a serious lack of judgement, who knowingly and wilfully misled the Fees Office and who took significant sums of money, as the report states, is in fact a fit and proper person to sit on a Committee that will scrutinise the new financial services regime. I do not intend to read out the whole report and will stick very closely to the subject of the—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. I must emphasise to him and to the House that this is not a debate on the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), and it certainly cannot be a rehashing, reworking or reiteration of the contents of a particular report. This is a debate on the establishment of a Joint Committee. Members are entitled to comment on whether they think the Committee should be established and, if they do not think that it should be or wish to amend its composition, to explain why. A general ad hominem attack on a particular individual is not the purpose of the debate and cannot become its substance. I know that the hon. Gentleman will speedily redirect his remarks in an entirely orderly way.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker. Obviously I took some very senior counsel this afternoon from Officers of the House, as you are aware, on how to stay in bounds and perhaps go offside, to use the modern—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman that, whatever senior counsel he sought and obtained, he can on this occasion make do with mine.

[Thomas Docherty]

I always have great respect for your counsel, Mr Speaker, and obviously do not seek a time when you might perhaps be advising other Parliaments in other parts of the country, or other parts of the world. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not be led astray into a spontaneous panegyric to his hon. Friends. He must focus very much on the matter in hand, which is the Joint Committee on the draft Financial Services Bill—quite a narrow brief, albeit an important one.

[Thomas Docherty]

Obviously, Mr Speaker, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) led me down a very tempting path, and I will do my best not to be drawn down it again.

The draft Bill is a phenomenally large document. I am sure that on your evenings off, Mr Speaker, when you are drinking a glass of mulled wine, you will have had a chance to flick through its contents. It is a wide-ranging Bill that seeks, rightly, radically to overhaul our financial services industry. It is therefore right that the individuals from both Houses who are tasked with providing the legislative scrutiny are properly scrutinised themselves, because we are placing a huge amount of trust in their hands. I suspect, Mr Speaker, that if I were to go too far into the issue of trust you would rightly pull me up for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is not a matter for debate in this Chamber tonight.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am most grateful, as ever, Mr Speaker, for your counsel. Of course, that is a debate for another time. As the Leader of the House is listening, perhaps we will have a discussion in future about the joint membership of the Committee and both Houses will be required to give their agreement, but that is not the issue before us today.

On no fewer than four occasions over the past seven days, the Government Whips have tried to slip this motion through literally on the nod at the end of the evening. On each occasion, an hon. Gentleman has objected. [Interruption.] It was an hon. Gentleman, as it was me and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). Unless the hon. Member for Cambridge knows something I do not, I am fairly confident that I can refer to myself and my hon. Friend as gentlemen.

On each of those occasions, a number of brief back-channel discussions took place between various members of the Treasury Bench—I will not name them, even if they are here—about what was going on. They are fully aware of what this has been about. It was entirely a matter for those on the Treasury Bench. If they did not wish to have this debate tonight, they could have approached us to see whether there was substance to our objection, but they chose not to do so. Indeed, one member of the Treasury Bench thought that we were objecting to our own Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

I think that you will correct me, Mr Speaker, if in my youthful naivety I have misunderstood the system. The Committee of Selection considers names, and those are put forward to the House for its approval. I think—again, you will correct me, Mr Speaker, if I am not fully aware of the procedure as a naive new Member—that the House had an opportunity to vote on that.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that I do not think the House requires a disquisition on his career trajectory, which resulted in his ultimate elevation to membership of the Procedure Committee. I am sure it is a matter of very great interest, but it can be kept for the long winter evenings.

[Thomas Docherty]

Perhaps over a glass of mulled wine, Mr Speaker. I was simply answering the question asked by the hon. Member for Portsmouth South, but my point is that my appointment was subject to a vote of the whole House, and it was approved. [Interruption.] I suspect that with my career trajectory going downwards, as hon. Members suggest, that would not necessarily happen again.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw is entirely right to say that we need to modernise the procedure. It is unfortunate that Members are being detained, and I do not wish to detain the House any longer—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I have never had so much support from the Government parties. All I would say is that it is entirely regrettable that, although the Government Whips may say otherwise, they were intransigent in not being prepared to have even a single formal conversation with Opposition Members to see whether a solution could be found. It is regrettable that Members are being kept from their mulled wine, so with that I will sit down with no further ado.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann]

I shall give way in a minute.

There is an important point about who should be a Back Bencher and who should remain a Back Bencher, because within the House, some will always be fated to be Back Benchers, often at the behest of their party leader. In power, party leaders love to exercise the power to choose who will be in ministerial positions or sit on Committees and the rest. However, on occasion there is perhaps a democratic requirement that some people should choose to be Back Benchers, or be chosen to be Back Benchers, for the length of a Parliament. It can be quite cathartic, as a politician, to spend one’s time—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is not the occasion for the hon. Gentleman either to dilate or to rhapsodise about the merits of Back-Bench life. Anybody would think that he was seeking to imitate his hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), and to pen a book entitled, “How to be a Backbencher”. He is welcome to do that, but if he wishes to do so, he must do so outside the Chamber.

[John Mann]

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for redirecting me following my aberration after that intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Speaker]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it usual or in order for Front-Bench Members to both shout and object on matters that are Back-Bench objections? I gather that the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) and others may have objected in order to force the last vote, but it is my understanding that that is not the normal convention.

[Mr Speaker]

The issue is whether there is an objection. There are matters that some people, including the right hon. Gentleman, might deem unusual, and that may be so in terms of party combat, but that does not necessarily have an implication for the conduct of proceedings in Parliament or for the judgment of the Chair. That said, the right hon. Gentleman has put his point squarely on the record.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Going one stage further as one of those Members who have, perhaps, been around for longer than we ought to have been, am I right in saying that there is a convention that votes follow voices, but that is not invariably the case?

[Mr Speaker]

It is not, but I strongly deprecate the suggestion that the hon. Gentleman has been around for longer than he ought to have been. [Interruption.] I am not wishing his untimely end, notwithstanding the sedentary dissent of the Patronage Secretary.

[John Mann]

As I was saying, equality is a fundamental issue in respect of Treasury matters. The make-up of this Committee reinforces and exemplifies an historical bias on equality that is a significant bar to effective decision making cross-party and over many generations. One only needs to look at the fact that Chancellors of the Exchequer have been male throughout the centuries. Therefore, in the modern era when all parties rightly, and with increasing success, are bringing women forward into Parliament, this Committee’s membership demonstrates an old-fashionedness and backdatedness that this House should not endorse tonight.

This gets to the nub of the gentleman’s club and the way in which decisions are being made and have been made. I suspect that no such discussions on equality took place as the names were put forward, and that, in fact, the different parties put forward their names in accordance with the usual time-honoured, historical tradition, and nobody then took an overview. I suspect that the bias against Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland came about in exactly the same way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I put it to you that the question of the allocation of powers to the other place is completely outside the scope of the motion?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I was listening intently and I was about to say, which I shall now do, that we are concerning ourselves in this debate with the establishment, composition and remit of the draft Financial Services Bill Joint Committee, upon which subject the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) is tabling and, I think, speaking to an amendment relating to a narrow part of the matter—namely, a particular member of the Committee. A wider dilation about possible future transfers of power, which might haunt the hon. Gentleman, are not subject matter for this evening’s debate, to which I know he will now return.

[John Mann]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your advice. I seek your clarification on one important matter. It was my intention, as demonstrated by my previous remarks, to confine myself to one contribution, looking at the substantive motion as well as the amendment. I may be in error in so doing and may require a second speech. It was my intention to restrict myself to a single speech, and I seek your guidance in relation to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman should proceed with his speech according to his own lights. It is not the normal practice of the Chair to conduct a running commentary on the speech of any hon. Member or to advise an hon. Member in advance of when he might inadvertently be about to slip beyond order. The hon. Gentleman can protect himself.

[John Mann]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that helpful guidance.

The final point that I wish to make in relation to the amendment is that the randomness of selection of an individual member to remove can have many motives and be for many reasons. This important proposal by the Government is fundamentally flawed in its make-up, as I have outlined, being English only and male only, with the Committee meeting as a priority during the summer and being a Joint Committee with the House of Lords.

The weakness of the usual channels, inspired by Government and the Government’s timetabling, has meant that we have not been able to have this debate without amendment. I therefore urge that in future when such matters are before the House, they should not be tabled to be nodded through at 10 pm with no debate or require objections from individual Members or groups of Members in order to stop that process, requiring an amendment to allow a debate both on the amendment and on the issues underlying the make-up of the Committee and the flawed and biased decision of Government in that regard. That is the Government’s responsibility. We as a House have a responsibility to hold the Government to account and to ensure that they do not get away with such sloppiness in their programming of legislation that they put legislation—

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I am rather disappointed that my hon. Friend seems to be coming to the end of his speech, which I am enjoying so much. Does he agree that there are far too many tight programme motions in the Chamber and that we should have more thorough debates to make sure that every point can be thoroughly discussed, as my hon. Friend is doing?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is a most interesting intervention, but sadly it has absolutely nothing to do with the establishment, composition or remit of the Joint Committee on the Draft Financial Services Bill.

[John Mann]

I shall therefore humbly ignore my hon. Friend’s intervention and conclude my remarks. As guardians of our democracy, albeit within the confines of the gentlemen’s club and the usual channels, and despite the weaknesses imposed upon us by the lack of modernisation, it is our responsibility and duty to expose flawed proposals, such as how the Government have unnaturally put together this unrepresentative and biased group without allowing us a debate that is timetabled in a proper and normal way. It is the Government’s responsibility to get that right, and I implore them to do so in future to save us having to object repeatedly at 10 o’clock at night to the flawed logic and bad politics that they have had to use—we all appreciate that it is a difficult time for the coalition—in order to try to hold these two ramshackle coalition partners together.

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

It is entirely a matter for the Standards and Privileges Committee, and ultimately the House, what sanctions should then be applied to anyone who has committed a contempt.

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Chris Bryant.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker; you are very cheeky.

As I understand it, the Deputy Serjeant at Arms has already served the summons on the lawyers of the two Murdochs, and as I understand it, there is no bar on foreign nationals being summoned. Let me make a suggestion to the Leader of the House. There is a degree of urgency about this. Parliament is going into recess next Tuesday, and the Select Committee is only going to meet on Tuesday. If the Murdochs still refuse to come next Tuesday, an alternative route would be for him to table an emergency motion on Monday to require the Serjeant at Arms to bring the Murdochs either to the Bar of the House or to the Committee. I think that he would have the support of the whole House in doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If clarification is required, we are happy to have it.

[Jim Shannon]

I said “food” prices. I am sorry for my accent.

[Sir George Young]

Food is every bit as important as fuel. I cannot promise time for an early debate on food prices, but of course the Government are taking appropriate action to try and bear down on inflation. However, for those confronted by rising food prices, support is available through the index-linked benefits from the Department for Work and Pensions.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and all 62 Back-Bench Members who took part in this session.

Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation Bid for BSkyB

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that it is a point of order.

[Mr Cash]

We have been told that there are published terms of reference and it would be helpful to have access to them. We do not know where they are and have not been told what they are.

[Mr Speaker]

That is a very important point, but it suffers from the disadvantage of not being a point of order.

[Sir George Young]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his statement this afternoon that the draft terms of reference would be placed in the Library.

This country has a rich tradition of a lively and free press, which must continue. We have been fortunate to have a strong and robust police force, which now must prove itself beyond reproach. Finally, although some outside this country may disagree, we are fortunate to have a House of Commons that is independent of Government, and the fact that Parliament has proved itself effective in resolving the issue is a tribute to how the House has addressed the matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brown]

I will set out my case and then I will answer questions.

This is the only way—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman. Mr Stuart, I am going to say it to you once and once only: you are far too excitable. Be quiet and calm down—[Interruption.] Order. If you cannot—do not shake your head at me—then leave the Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Graham Stuart]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I ask whether there is any time limit in this debate, and—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. If there were a time limit it would be announced; when there is, it will be. That is the end of the matter. It is a totally bogus point of order, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

[Mr Brown]

I notice that the hon. Gentleman asks for a time limit; perhaps what he ought to do is listen to the facts.

If we do not act now on what we now know, and if we do not act forcefully and with clarity, friends around the world who admire our liberties will ask what kind of country we—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for having to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman.

Earlier today the Prime Minister said it; the Leader of the Opposition has said it; the Leader of the House has said it—a new tone, a new mood. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) will be quiet. There will be interventions when the Member who has the floor takes them, and not before. Members will observe basic courtesies and listen quietly and with respect to speakers. That is the end of it. Mr Stuart, if you are not prepared to do so, leave the Chamber. We can manage without you.

[Mr Brown]

If we do not act now as a House of Commons, knowing what we now know, and act forcefully and with clarity, friends around the world who admire our liberties as a country will now ask what kind of country we have become. A crime has been committed against innocent members of the public; a complaint has been made to the police and no satisfaction has been given. Even when the police have had someone’s name as a likely victim, they were neither telling them nor taking action. No action from the head of the first police inquiry, Andy Hayman, whose next job just happened to be at News International; no action from his successor, who had overall responsibility for two inquiries—Mulcaire and Abelard, or what is called Southern Investigations—each with vast but unexamined archives exposing criminality on a huge scale. Inspector Yates has redefined for us the meaning of an inquiry. He not only failed to ask any of the right questions but, as became clear yesterday, he failed even to ask any of the basic questions.

I deeply regret my inability to do then what I wanted to do—to overturn the advice of all the authorities and set up a judicial inquiry. I can say for the record that, as I left office, I talked to the leader of the Liberal party and warned him that a Coulson problem would emerge, and I did so directly, and not through an intermediary who might not remember to pass on the message. At the same time, I handed him, in person, our proposal for a commission into the media, and in summer last year, I wrote to the head of the civil service to point out that the previous advice against the judicial inquiry had clearly since been overtaken by the new evidence.

I am afraid that the House must examine more recent, more damning and more alarming evidence. Because of what happened to my children, whose privacy at all times I have tried to protect, I have been sent, I have been offered, and I have had thrust upon me a great deal of evidence that is relevant to this debate, which is now for the police to examine. It is right for the House to know that the damage done in the past 10 years to innocent lives was avoidable. As early as the winter of 2002, senior police officers at Scotland Yard met the now chief executive of News International and informed her of serious malpractice on the part of her newspaper staff and criminals undertaking surveillance on their behalf. The new investigation will no doubt uncover why no action was taken within News International and what lay behind the subsequent promotion of that junior editor concerned.

In that context, and again, because of what happened to my family, I have been made aware of an additional and previously unexamined stream of orders by one of the editors at News International, Mr Alex Marunchak, to hack and to intrude—a man who was subsequently promoted to be a full editor of a regional edition of the News of the World. As we now know, a cover-up can be more damning than the original crime, and the decision of the News International chairman to pay, without reference to his board, some victims sums of around £500,000, may now be seen as the buying of silence. Given his statements to this House, that must now be the subject of full parliamentary, as well as police, scrutiny.

The freedom of the press in this country was built through the countless acts of fearless people who had done no wrong, and yet had to make huge sacrifices. Today, the freedom of the press can best be assured by full disclosure and reparation by those who know that they have done wrong. First, for the future, the press media itself should immediately press for a new Press Complaints Commission. We need one that is proactive, not passive; one that is less about protecting the press from the public, and more about properly processing the complaints of the public against the press; and one that is wholly independent, so that it can differentiate, and be seen to differentiate, between the abuse of power as a result of self-interest and what we really need, which is the pursuit of truth in the public interest.

We need to put an end to the violation of rights, but also to ensure the righting of wrongs. Secondly, therefore, News International papers, and every other responsible paper, should in future be obliged to publish—not on page 35 or 27, but on page 1—apologies to all individuals whose rights have been infringed. Perhaps in future we will know the naming and shaming of criminals inside the media by the name of one of the saddest victims, as happened with Sarah’s law. That would require News International to practise what it has so self-righteously preached to other people.

Thirdly, we must do all in our power to prevent the subversion of our basic rights again. We must therefore be ready to discuss limits to the undue concentration of ownership in the media as a whole. I must say to the Prime Minister, in response to the statement he made earlier today, that I believe that he will have to widen the remit of the commission of inquiry, so that we are sure that it will examine not just the police and general ethics, but all the evidence of the abuse of surveillance techniques and technologies, as a result of which we saw the undermining of our civil liberties.

In the long and winding evolution of our rights and freedoms, the people of this country have always been at risk from huge concentrations of power. Traditionally, they have seen the freedom of the press as a force for their freedom, but when our country’s biggest media organisation has itself become an unchallengeable concentration of power, as it was until today; when it is has held in contempt not only basic standards of legality, but basic standards of decency, too; when it has replaced freedom with licence; when it has wielded power without ever being elected to do so; and when it has regarded itself not only as above the law, but as above the elected institutions of our country, all concerned people in this House should be able to see that what should be our greatest defence against the abuse of power had itself become an intolerable abuser of power.

History will also show that a press will not long remain free in any country unless it is also responsible. If the irresponsibility that has characterised News International is not to define the public view of the media as a whole and if continued irresponsibility is not to force Parliament to take ever stronger measures to protect the public from the press, we will need far more than the closure of a newspaper one week and the withdrawal of a bid the next.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is nice to see him in the Chamber, Mr Speaker. I have listened carefully to him—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must be heard.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman as he has so eloquently outlined for us his bravery in standing up to Murdoch. Does he regret that the previous Government held a slumber party for Elisabeth Murdoch and Rebekah Wade, as she was known then, at Chequers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was his predecessor as Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. As he also knows, we asked Rebekah Brooks—then Rebekah Wade—to give evidence to the Committee, with Andy Coulson, at that time. She admitted with clarity that she had been involved in paying money to the police. Andy Coulson said that that had been done only within the law, which was an unbelievable lie because it is impossible for a newspaper to pay money to the police within the law. When the hon. Gentleman has Rebekah Brooks and the other people from News International before him, I advise him to take a long spoon with him, because of the way in which they will try to lie and cheat their way out of the predicament that they are in.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Interventions must be brief.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I recall vividly the evidence given by Rebekah Brooks to the Committee when the right hon. Gentleman was its Chairman. It included matters that he rightly says might turn out to be criminal, and I am certain that the judicial inquiry will want to examine them. I have no doubt that some of my colleagues on the Select Committee, who are extremely robust on these matters, might well wish to ask questions about those matters as well, should they have the chance to do so.

In regard to the takeover of BSkyB—which is, after all, the matter that we are supposed to be debating this afternoon—it has always been the case that there are more stringent tests for the acquisition of a media company in this country. That is right; it is a reflection of the power of the media that they should be subject to greater tests. I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), who has been utterly scrupulous in his handling of this matter. I believe that he has acted on the basis of independent advice at every stage, and it is difficult to find fault with the way in which he has conducted himself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In view of the level of interest expressed, from now on there will be a four-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bradshaw]

To dispel any suspicion—[Hon. Members: “Give way!”] No, I will not give way. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to give way, it is up to him.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I give way to the Secretary of State.

Sir Malcolm Jack KCB

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) will imitate the quality of “Erskine May”, a copy of which he is clutching, but I feel modestly confident that he will not seek to equal its length.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. The reality, as some Members will be aware, is that the Editor of Hansard does have some discretion in the compilation of the Official Report, and marginal adjustments can be made, although ordinarily one does not expect adjustments to be made which change the meaning of what has been said. I think the safest thing that I can say to the hon. Lady on this occasion is that I will look into the matter and revert to her when I have done so.

Royal Assent

[Mr Speaker]

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

Sports Grounds Safety Authority Act 2011

Estates of Deceased Persons (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Act 2011

Wreck Removal Convention Act 2011

Police (Detention and Bail) Act 2011

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

It is a serious offence, punishable by imprisonment, to threaten a tenant in the way that the hon. Gentleman has just described. I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Housing Minister and ask whether there is any action that he should be taking in the light of that television programme.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Leader of the House and other Members for their pithiness, which has enabled all 46 Back Benchers who wanted to contribute to do so.

Electricity Transmission (Protection of Landscape)

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

rose—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just before the hon. Lady gets under way, may I appeal to Members who are unaccountably leaving the Chamber, and not remaining to hear her, to do so quickly and quietly, so that we can afford the same courtesy to her that we would want extended to ourselves in such circumstances?

[Tessa Munt]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision to require factors other than cost to be considered for schemes for the transmission of high voltage electricity where infrastructure would impact on the visual and other amenity of a landscape; to provide that in certain cases such infrastructure be installed by visually unobtrusive works; to require that public consultation be undertaken and inform the selection of the method and technology for the transmission infrastructures used; and for connected purposes.

The purpose of the Bill is simple. It seeks to update the Electricity Act 1989, which recognises the transmission of high-voltage electricity only on cables strung between transmission towers, which we all know as pylons. Concerns have been raised by thousands of people throughout the country, many of whom live in rural areas and do not have the protection afforded to those in urban or suburban communities, where power lines are automatically put underground.

People who live in towns and cities, however, often enjoy their leisure time and holidays in the countryside, and I draw attention particularly to the 26,000 people whose livelihoods are dependent on tourism in my constituency, just one of many that would be damaged beyond belief if new lines on 152 ft pylons were introduced. The Somerset levels were in contention to become the 17th world heritage site until the proposal was made.

There are such problems for rural communities all over the country, as new pylons are planned to bring new supplies of energy from whatever source, be it turbines, gas, coal, wind, nuclear or tidal. What happens when we want to install cable TV? Automatically, we dig up high streets and roads all over the place. What happens when we host the Olympics? Around the whole Olympic village, power cables have been put underground. We do not suspend blue water pipes or yellow gas pipes from transmission towers, so why do we do so for electricity power cables?

National Grid has drawn to my attention the fact that it is holding a competition on pylon design, but that is purely a diversion and certainly not the answer to the country’s questions about transmission. The county council, district councils and parish councils are all against the proposals, but all that National Grid, our monopoly supplier, does is hear; it does not listen. There are alternatives, and they are underground and undersea.

The Bill recognises several factors, including the voice of the public and the value of consultation, which should not just be done on the nod; it should be about listening, not just hearing. Consultation responses should inform the method and technology for the infrastructure used. This is also about being green. Losses during transmission are about 7% once one gets the power to the cables. It is clear that undergrounding or putting cables undersea would reduce those losses significantly.

There are health reasons why we should put cables underground. The Government continue to be very poorly advised on the adverse health effects associated with high-voltage overhead power lines. Extensive studies have established a clear correlation between increased risk of childhood leukaemia, adult leukaemia, adult brain tumours, motor neurone disease, miscarriage and Alzheimer’s disease and the electromagnetic fields associated with such lines. The risk to children and adults easily satisfies a cost-benefit analysis in favour of burying high-voltage power lines.

The UK Health Protection Agency considers only a fraction—typically less than 10%—of the available scientific evidence. Included in major studies showing increased risk of childhood leukaemia are the 2005 study by Dr Gerald Draper of Oxford university, published in the British Medical Journal, and studies in Tasmania and, particularly, in Iran, where all power lines go overground. One of the many studies showing increased risks of Alzheimer’s disease is the 2008 whole-population study by Dr Anke Huss of the university of Berne, which revealed particular risks in populations living near overhead power lines in Switzerland.

National Grid is not the National Gallery, the National Trust or the national health service, but it is a massive, monopoly, multinational provider with a primary aim—to seek the maximum return for its shareholders. We have no choice but to use this super-sized company to get our power from its source to the places where it can be distributed to us in our homes and businesses. In June 2009, National Grid’s own chief executive officer, Steve Holliday, went on the record to say that undergrounding transmission lines was a “ no-brainer”. Cost is not everything.

In October 2010, Sir Michael Pitt, the chief executive of the Infrastructure Planning Commission, requested an independent and authoritative evaluation of undergrounding. The Department of Energy and Climate Change sought the assistance of the Institution of Engineering and Technology as an independent assessor of that study by a company called KEMA. The study was to be funded by none other than National Grid. None the less, it went ahead, and the results were meant to be produced on 25 January. However, nothing happened. On 3 June, the IET issued a press release stating that KEMA had not been able to issue a report with which it was satisfied owing to a lack of data from National Grid, and so the IET could not endorse its work.

It is surely time to open up this debate—to put it right into the light and demand that all these figures be provided. I am calling for openness in deciding whether power cables should be put underground or undersea instead of overground. The costs are not an issue—we all pay them through our bills. In November 2009, National Grid admitted that the cost of undersea or undergrounding would put just 1% on our electricity bills. Siemens has produced figures showing that using gas-insulated lines would reduce the whole-life costs of underground cables to under half the costs of pylons.

I pay tribute to the work of my many colleagues across the House who are interested in this subject, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) and my hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo) and for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), as well as many others. There have been objections to pylons in Wales, Scotland, the north-east, the south-west and throughout East Anglia. I understand that there is a statement on record from Carwyn Jones, the First Minister in the Welsh Assembly Government in Cardiff, who said no to pylons too.

I also recognise the work of the many pressure groups. I am grateful to some of them for information, in particular Pylon Moor Pressure, No Moor Pylons, Save Our Valley, REVOLT, Bury Not Blight, Highlands before Pylons, North East Pylon Pressure, Montgomeryshire Against Pylons and Stour Valley Underground.

It is time to consider the impact of what we are doing to our countryside, our tourism, our health and our environment. We know the cost of everything, but this matter indicates that we might not spot the value of what we have. Changing the law would at least give us the opportunity to get it right for everyone’s sake. I am delighted to introduce this measure to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Tessa Munt, Martin Horwood, Roger Williams, Sir Robert Smith, Tim Farron, Mr Tim Yeo, Dr Thérèse Coffey, Glyn Davies, Natascha Engel, Dr Alan Whitehead, Mrs Anne McGuire and Caroline Lucas present the Bill.

Tessa Munt accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November, and to be printed (Bill 215).

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier, you heard a point of order from the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), which suggested that the Government had not made Parliament aware of fundamental changes in tax policy by a statement in the House. I believe that that was incorrect. I think that she was referring to the ring fence expenditure supplement for the North sea fiscal regime. I am sure you will recall, Mr Speaker, that that was presaged in the March Budget. Further to that, a very detailed written ministerial statement was issued by the Treasury this morning and was available in the House of Commons Library at 10 o’clock. Indeed, had the hon. Lady taken the trouble to look at the Order Paper, she would have found it at No. 3 on the list of today’s written ministerial statements. I just wanted to put the record straight.

[Mr Speaker]

We are grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House for doing so. The point is on the record and is very clear.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Very briefly. We are not having a general debate about taxation.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker. In defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), she was referring to the fact that there was a debate on this very issue last night in the Commons and the Exchequer Secretary made no reference to the statement being due the following day.

[Mr Speaker]

That is noted, but procedural propriety has been observed. That is all that the Chair needs to observe.