Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I understand the appetite of colleagues. This is an important business statement by the Leader of the House, but its terms are relatively narrow and it is not the normal business statement so it really should focus on tomorrow, which is the subject matter on which the Leader focused.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Will the Leader just clarify? I thought the 2018 Act required an exit date, not two optional dates. So I am surprised that the statutory instrument is actually naming two dates. I would have thought that the right thing would have been to have 12 April and then extend later if need be. Am I also right in thinking—I am sure the Leader would agree—that if those statutory instruments go through both Houses of Parliament, we will be coming out of the European Union, at least domestically, in three days’ time?

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz]

The Leader of the House read out the business for next week, but that is not really next week’s business, is it, since she will come back to the House with some emergency business motions? This is a contempt of democracy and parliamentary democracy. The Prime Minister said she would come back to the House with a meaningful vote—it will actually be meaningful vote 4, because she pulled the vote in December, when Parliament should have had the chance to debate a meaningful vote but did not.

How will the Prime Minister negotiate with the EU if she does not know the will of the House? What was the point of the statement yesterday, other than to set up a hostile environment between the Prime Minister and the House? The Leader of the House says that the House will not sit next Friday, and that there will be further business. Will she confirm to the House, honestly, whether we will sit on Friday, and whether we will debate the statutory instrument that extends the date of us leaving the EU?

Last week I asked about dates for Opposition day debates, and the Leader of the House said that there was “incredibly important” business for the week ahead. Opposition days are incredibly important business, and they are central to our democracy. On Monday, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) raised a point of order, and you responded, Mr Speaker, by saying that

“colleagues would think that it was a democratic and seemly thing to do to ensure that the principal Opposition party had the requisite allocation of days”.—[Official Report, 19 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 788.]

That is why we take great exception to the Prime Minister’s comments that we are not interested in other matters.

Week after week I have stood at the Dispatch Box and asked the Leader of the House not just for Opposition days, but for statements and debates on local government, the NHS, social care, education, and cuts to our police services. My colleagues have asked for urgent questions on issues that affect our country. It is not us in Parliament who are contemplating our navels—I have never heard such unparliamentary language about hard-working colleagues from all sides of the House. We sit on Select Committees and Delegated Legislation Committees—that is what we do.

Let us remind ourselves: the Government had Lancaster House, Mansion House, Florence and Berlin. Each time we begged the Prime Minister for clarity on the negotiations, and each time she said nothing—“I don’t want to give a running commentary; Brexit means Brexit”. She should have given us broad heads of agreement right at the start, so that she could understand what Parliament wanted. The Chequers agreement was put to the Cabinet in July, but the Leader of the House and some of her pals preferred to have pizza parties instead of supporting their Prime Minister. Secretaries of State have resigned—we are now on our third Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. Ministers have resigned. This is a crisis of the Government’s own making, and the Cabinet is divided.

Last week, bizarrely, I was in the Lobby with the Prime Minister, but the Leader of the House and seven of her colleagues were in another Lobby—they voted against the Government’s own motion. That included the Brexit Secretary, who wound up the debate by saying:

“It is time to put forward an extension that is realistic.”—[Official Report, 14 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 628.]

He then voted to reject his own argument. Does the Leader of the House agree with Cabinet responsibility, and could we have a debate about what it means? It is no good her rounding on her colleagues in Cabinet, and then rounding on my colleagues in the Chamber, saying that she does not agree with them.

Let me again raise something that is not about contemplating our navels. Interserve, which employs 45,000 staff in the UK and works on £2 billion of Government contracts, has been put into administration. Tussell data shows that Interserve was handed public contracts worth hundreds of millions of pounds in the run-up to its collapse, despite announcing a series of profit warnings—[Interruption.] It is not funny; it is people’s lives. The Government are failing to ensure the viability of their outsourcing contracts.

Last July the Public Accounts Committee described the NHS’s outsourcing to Capita as a “shambles”, and the National Audit Office found that the £495 million contract to provide recruitment for the British Army had been beset by problems. The probation service has been described as “in crisis” since it was partly outsourced. That is what the public are tired of. A third of Government spending goes on external contractors and suppliers. When can the House have proper scrutiny of the failure of Government outsourcing contracts?

Last week, the Leader said that children should be in school. Some 1.4 million children and young people took part in the school strike against climate change. They disagree with her. I do, too. This is about education and citizenship. What to do to influence decision makers is vital. This is what 16-year-old Greta Thunberg said:

“You cheat when you can because all that matters is to win…We need to start co-operating and sharing the remaining resources of this planet in a fair way.”

While the Government have sat contemplating, they could have invested in the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon and in solar power, ended the cuts to feed-in tariffs and initiated a scrappage scheme for diesel cars. That is going to affect climate change.

I want to mention the funeral service of our dear colleague Paul Flynn tomorrow. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has managed to secure a service in St Mary Undercroft. We thank the chaplain, Rev. Rose Hudson-Wilkin, and you, Mr Speaker, for indicating that you will be there.

On the second anniversary of his death, we remember PC Keith Palmer and those who died on Westminster Bridge. We think of the amazing people who protect us and who give their lives up to do so.

I, too, want to echo the words of Prime Minister Ardern. It is up to all of us to reject racism and hatred of anyone who is different. To the people of New Zealand, we are you and you are us. Rest in peace.

[Mr Speaker]

Before the Leader responds, and in the light of what the shadow Leader has said about the second anniversary of the death of PC Keith Palmer, I can inform the House that I intend that there should be a one-minute silence tomorrow in the Chamber, supported, I would hope, by people observing our proceedings. The intention is that that minute’s silence will take place at 11 o’clock.

[Andrea Leadsom]

First, I share the hon. Lady’s tribute to PC Keith Palmer. I was delighted to be at the memorial recognition of his great sacrifice and the unveiling of the memorial to him. She is absolutely right to pay her own tribute. I also share in her pleasure that there will be a memorial service for Paul Flynn, a much-missed colleague. I echo her words about the appalling atrocity that took place in New Zealand. It is absolutely horrendous. We all hope that the communities in New Zealand can come together, as they are doing, and we support all those who have been so tragically affected.

The hon. Lady asks about the meaningful vote next week. She will recognise that, as I said in my business statement, this is a fluid situation and we are waiting for the response of the EU27 to our request for an extension, which the Prime Minister has taken to them in response to the requirement of this House that she do so. As soon as we have a response from the EU Council, I will be able to update the House on when we can bring forward a meaningful vote and a debate next week. But it is certainly the Prime Minister’s intention to do so. Likewise, in terms of bringing forward the statutory instrument, hon. Members will know that, under the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018, it is required that that statutory instrument be approved by both Houses. It is therefore vital that we find time for that as soon as we can.

The hon. Lady asks about Opposition days. We have debated a range of secondary legislation this week. I have announced important business for next week, including the section 13 debate on Monday and Lords amendments to two important Bills, the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill and the Offensive Weapons Bill. This week, we have had debates on two statutory instruments requested by the official Opposition. I will, of course, continue to consider her requests for further dates.

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that all Members right across the House have a huge interest in matters outside of Brexit. There is no doubt about that. I think the Business question every Thursday demonstrates the range of different interests across the House. All of us share a desire to be able to talk about things not Brexit-related that are so important to people, so I completely agree with her there.

What I will say about the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday is that what she was seeking to invoke among all parliamentarians was just the absolute reality that in a hung Parliament it is for every Member to seek to support good governance. I think that we can all be proud of the fact that in this Session alone we have introduced over 50 pieces of primary legislation, more than 40 of which have already received Royal Assent. In a hung Parliament, that demonstrates the House’s ability to work together in order to reach consensus, agree concessions and act in the national interest.

What the Prime Minister is seeking is for all individual Members to recognise that her withdrawal agreement and future declaration offer the means by which we can leave the European Union, in line with the will of the people as expressed in the referendum, but at the same time the significant minority of people who want to remain in the EU will also have their concerns met by a very close future economic and security partnership. I therefore urge all colleagues, right across the House, to consider the Prime Minister’s deal very carefully.

The shadow Leader of the House asked whether I believe in collective Cabinet responsibility. Of course I do. I have totally supported the Prime Minister’s desire to get a vote through this place. I have always been absolutely clear—in the press and in this Chamber—that I support a withdrawal agreement and a political declaration that deliver the will of the people, but that at the same time continue a close, collaborative relationship with our EU friends and neighbours.

The hon. Lady asked about Interserve, and she was absolutely right to do so. The Government certainly welcome the announcement that Interserve made last Friday regarding its refinancing, which will not affect the operational part of the company. It will bring the company the stability required to allow it to compete for future business and to continue to deliver good-value public services for the taxpayer. It is in the taxpayer’s interests to have a well-financed and stable group of key suppliers, so we welcome the actions that Interserve has taken.

The hon. Lady asked about schools and climate change. Let me say again that I absolutely welcome, support and endorse the determination of young people to do everything they can to support all those experiencing the negative effects of global climate change. We should do everything we can to support our environment around us. The United Kingdom ratified the Paris agreement in November 2016. More than 50% of UK electricity came from low-carbon sources in 2018, making it a record year for renewables, under this Conservative Government. We have cut the use of plastic bags by 86%, through our plastic bag charge. We have reduced emissions faster than any other G7 nation. The latest figures show that we have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 23% since 2010. There is obviously a lot more to do, but I commend all young people who show their passion for the subject. At the same time, I reiterate that education is the best gift that a society can give its young people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just before I call the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), I hope the whole House, and everybody present in the Palace of Westminster, will want to join me in congratulating the right hon. Lady on her birthday.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady that colleagues on both sides of the House—she is a perfect example—all want to do the best for our country and our society. I totally endorse her thoughts that MPs need to be treated with respect and given the opportunity to represent their constituents and their country in alignment with their own beliefs and with doing the best they can possibly do. I pay tribute at all times to all Members of Parliament, and I will do everything I can to ensure that we are all able to go about our business and do a good job for our constituents and for our country.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Leader of the House for what she said in response to that very powerful inquiry from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). I have said it before, in the light of some extremely ominous coverage of Members some months ago, but I will say it again, because it brooks of no misunderstanding or contradiction: none of you is a traitor and all of you are doing your best.

This should not be, and I am sure it will not prove to be, a matter of any controversy whatsoever. From the Chair, let me say that I believe passionately in the institution of Parliament, in the rights of Members of this House and in their commitment to their duty—I use the word “duty” in the singular advisedly. The sole duty of every Member of Parliament is to do what he or she thinks is right. There is nothing, in my judgment, to be added.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Is this a Labour Whip’s handout?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let us grow up. Do grow up, for goodness’ sake. This is not a matter of party political hackery. Let us have some seriousness of purpose and mutual respect. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) is an experienced Member of the House. He has asked an honest question, to which I know the Leader of the House will honestly reply. For goodness’ sake, let us raise the level.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Mr Speaker, may I just say that your response does not raise the level? I will leave it there.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Resume your seat, Leader of the House. My response sets out the constitutional position that has applied to Members of the House of Commons over generations, and I cannot for the life of me see or believe that there is anything remotely controversial about what I have said.

[Andrea Leadsom]

In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), what I wanted to say is that I will speak for my own views when I say that I have the highest regard for Members from right across this Chamber. All hon. Members do exactly as they think is right for their constituents and for their country, and it is absolutely right that they should continue to do so. What I think the Prime Minister was urging upon all hon. Members is to recognise that in a hung Parliament it is incumbent on us all to ensure that there is good government, because, by definition, it is important that we all participate in ensuring progress for our country, as indeed we have done through more than 40 pieces of primary legislation in this Session alone, where we have been able to come together in the national interest to make progress on certain areas of legislation, ranging from counter-terrorism to tenants’ fees, all manner of automated vehicles and so on. We have been able to work together to come to a conclusion and make a positive statement about the way the country should go. I think that the Prime Minister was seeking to urge all right hon. and hon. Members to look carefully at the reality, which is that there is a means by which we can deliver on the referendum, while ensuring we keep a close and collaborative relationship with our EU friends and neighbours. Alternatively, the legal position that this House voted for is to leave the EU on 29 March without any other arrangements. What the Prime Minister is seeking for this House to do is to come together to support a way forward. The House has not so far done that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

And you, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

And us all. The Leader of the House says that she is Parliament’s voice in Government. Although that is constitutionally the position she holds, she is certainly Government’s voice in Parliament. I think that we have always been very clear about that as well, and we acknowledge that part of her responsibilities.

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

I have a constituent who only found out after the death of her husband that she could actually get additional state pension based on his national insurance contributions. The Department for Work and Pensions had notified her husband but, for whatever reason, he had not taken action. This means that, although she is now claiming the additional money, she is limited to a maximum 12 months’ backdated claim. Rather than the outdated assumption that the man controls the household finances, can we have a Government statement confirming that the DWP will now always notify both husband and wife, and look at changing the law on the length of period for which such pensions can be backdated?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Before I ask the Leader of the House a question, Mr Speaker, may I put on the public record how often I am told by the people of 30 nations with whom I often interact how much they admire our opportunity to have a Speaker who stands up for Back Benchers, who defends the standards of Parliament, and who represents the best of British way of doing things with fairness, openness and transparency? Thank you, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you.

[Mrs Moon]

Scotland is currently consulting on non-time-limited guidance for clinicians to assess access to terminal illness benefits. Can we have more sitting Fridays in order to debate my private Member’s Bill that looks at amending the current time-limited access to terminal illness benefits to bring it into line with Scotland’s proposed, more compassionate guidance?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I think it is in the interests of the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) that his Chief Whip be called before him. I call Mr Patrick Grady.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can assure you and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that Whips always smile and are never cross.

I want to press the Leader of the House on the issue of the House sitting on the Friday, and potentially the Saturday, of next week. I found it quite astonishing that there had never been a plan for us to sit on what was supposed to have been Brexit day. Given the possibility that we could have crashed out at 11 o’clock next Friday, it is astonishing to think that we might have to wait until the following Monday to respond to that. So are there contingency plans in place? This is particularly important for the staff who help to keep this place running. That is also true of the Easter recess. I am quite happy to sleep in the Lobby if need be to get this mess sorted out, but it is simply unfair to keep the Clerks, the security and catering staff, and everybody else who makes this place work waiting to find out whether there is going to be an Easter recess. When will we get confirmation of these dates, if at all?

Speaker’s Statement

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I wish to make a statement to the House. There has been much speculation over the past week about the possibility of the Government bringing before the House a motion on Brexit for another so-called meaningful vote under the statutory framework provided in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. On 13 March, however, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) asked on a point of order, at column 394, whether it would be proper for the Government to keep bringing the same deal back to the House ad infinitum. I replied that no ruling was necessary at that stage, but that one might be required at some point in the future. Subsequently Members on both sides of the House, and indeed on both sides of the Brexit argument, have expressed their concerns to me about the House being repeatedly asked to pronounce on the same fundamental proposition.

The 24th edition of “Erskine May” states on page 397:

“A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”

It goes on to state:

“Attempts have been made to evade this rule by raising again, with verbal alterations, the essential portions of motions which have been negatived. Whether the second motion is substantially the same as the first is finally a matter for the judgment of the Chair.”

This convention is very strong and of long standing, dating back to 2 April 1604. Last Thursday, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) quoted examples of occasions when the ruling had been reasserted by four different Speakers of this House, notably in 1864, 1870, 1882, 1891 and 1912. Each time, the Speaker of the day ruled that a motion could not be brought back because it had already been decided in that same Session of Parliament. Indeed, “Erskine May” makes reference to no fewer than 12 such rulings up to the year 1920.

One of the reasons why the rule has lasted so long is that it is a necessary rule to ensure the sensible use of the House’s time and proper respect for the decisions that it takes. Decisions of the House matter. They have weight. In many cases, they have direct effects not only here but on the lives of our constituents. Absence of Speaker intervention since 1920 is attributable not to the discontinuation of the convention but to general compliance with it; thus, as “Erskine May” notes, the Public Bill Office has often disallowed Bills on the ground that a Bill with the same or very similar long title cannot be presented again in the same Session.

So far as our present situation is concerned, let me summarise the chronology of events. The draft EU withdrawal agreement, giving effect to the deal between the Government and the EU, was published on 14 November and the agreement itself, together with the accompanying political declaration on the future relationship, received endorsement from the European Council on 25 November. The first scheduled debate on what I will hereafter refer to as “the deal” was due to take place on 11 December. However, on 10 December the vote was postponed after 164 speeches had already been made over three of the five days allotted for debate. That postponement was caused not by me or by the House, but by the Government. Indeed, I pointed out at the time that that was deeply discourteous to the House and I suggested that the permission of the House for that postponement should be sought. Regrettably, it was not.

Over five weeks later, following a further five-day debate, the first meaningful vote was held on 15 January, which the Government lost by a margin of 230 votes—the largest in parliamentary history. Subsequently, the second meaningful vote was expected to take place in February, but once again there was a postponement. It finally happened only last Tuesday, 12 March. The Government’s motion on the deal was again very heavily defeated.

In my judgment, that second meaningful vote motion did not fall foul of the convention about matters already having been decided during the same Session. This was because it could be credibly argued that it was a different proposition from that already rejected by the House on 15 January. It contained a number of legal changes which the Government considered to be binding and which had been agreed with the European Union after intensive discussions. Moreover, the Government’s second meaningful vote motion was accompanied by the publication of three new documents—two issued jointly with the EU and a unilateral declaration from the UK not objected to by the EU. In procedural terms, it was therefore quite proper that the debate and the second vote took place last week. The Government responded to its defeat, as they had promised to do, by scheduling debates about a no-deal Brexit and an extension of article 50 on 13 and 14 March respectively.

It has been strongly rumoured, although I have not received confirmation of this, that a third, and even possibly a fourth, meaningful vote motion will be attempted. Hence this statement, which is designed to signal what would be orderly and what would not. This is my conclusion: if the Government wish to bring forward a new proposition that is neither the same nor substantially the same as that disposed of by the House on 12 March, that would be entirely in order. What the Government cannot legitimately do is to resubmit to the House the same proposition or substantially the same proposition as that of last week, which was rejected by 149 votes. This ruling should not be regarded as my last word on the subject; it is simply meant to indicate the test which the Government must meet in order for me to rule that a third meaningful vote can legitimately be held in this parliamentary Session.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I make three points following your helpful statement?

First, at the beginning of it, you used “may” and not the word “must”. At the end, you used the word “must” and not the word “may”. Those are the first two points.

The third point is this: when Sir Ian Gilmour put forward a provision in effect for putting carpets and coffee in betting offices, the puritans objected, so the Bill was withdrawn. Shortly afterwards, a Bill on miscellaneous premises and miscellaneous provisions was passed because no one noticed that it was to do with coffee and carpets in betting shops.

Therefore, there are times when the title of a Bill has been changed. Perhaps if the long title of something that the Government proposed was changed, that might be accepted by the Chair, rather than it having to be ruled out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am not sure there were three points there—I detected only two. I do not wish to be unkind or discourteous to the hon. Gentleman, whom I hope I always treat with the utmost respect, but I am somewhat foxed and befuddled by his first observation, which was not as overpoweringly clear to me as manifestly it was to him. I certainly referred to “Erskine May”. I was not conscious that I had used the word “may” early in my statement and the word “must” at the end of it in a way that would brook of contradiction or, indeed, be open to the suggestion that the words were contradictory. If he wishes to labour under that impression and can subsequently convince me, over either a cup of coffee or a cup of tea, that I have erred in some material respect, I shall always be prepared to profit by his counsel. As for the point in respect of the late Ian Gilmour, I am not familiar with that particular example. I suspect it would be interesting reading, and I will add it to my list for the period of days that lies ahead. I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said and for the courtesy with which he has said it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I will come to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) but first let us go to the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It seems to me that what you have said makes an enormous amount of sense, given that this has been defeated on two separate occasions. Unless there is a substantial difference, it must follow that what you have said, in a very important statement, makes an enormous amount of sense. I just wondered about one thing with regard to the precedent of 1604, which was whether there was any connection between that and the gunpowder plot being very shortly afterwards. [Laughter.]

[Mr Speaker]

Well, the hon. Gentleman is a far superior historian, and he may know this—I will not say. I appreciate also his sense of humour on what is, nevertheless, an extremely important occasion. I thank him for what he has said. I have always respected him as a principled and indefatigable parliamentarian. In fact, I think that across this House, whether people agree with him or not, they know of one thing, which I once said, as he knows, on the occasion of Her Majesty the Queen’s visit to this place. As I said directly to her, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) speaks and votes only and always as he thinks the national interest requires. There can be no greater compliment to a Member of Parliament than to say that to him or her.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I thank you for your statement this afternoon? We do indeed live in interesting times. However, it is fair to say that we are in a constitutional crisis, and I seek your advice on how we can convey a message to the Government that the issue of leadership is now most important and, indeed, imperative. What can we do to prevail upon the Prime Minister that she must immediately call a meeting of all Opposition leaders in order that we can react to this crisis and find a way ahead, and, moreover, that she must immediately meet the Heads of Government in Edinburgh and in Cardiff?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman has made his point with force and alacrity. It is not for me to say whom the Prime Minister should or should not meet, but that point is registered and on the record. If I know the right hon. Gentleman as well as I think I do, it will be repeated by him with some passion and vociferousness in the days ahead and, not least because of the force with which it is articulated again and again and again, I feel certain that it will be heard. Whether it is heeded remains to be seen, but it will be heard.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, may I say how delighted I am that you have decided to follow precedent, which is something I am greatly in favour of? Dare I say that there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repented than over the 99 who are not in need of repentance? I wonder whether you might help the House with two points of clarity. First, would your indication today prevent the Second Reading, or even the First Reading, of the so-called withdrawal agreement Bill, which may have the same effect of confirming the meaningful vote? Secondly, would I be right in thinking that a new Session after a prorogation would allow the motion to be returned to the House?

[Mr Speaker]

The House would decide on the principle of the withdrawal agreement Bill at Second Reading, if we got to that point. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes and the—if he will forgive my saying so—partly rhetorical question accompanying it about post Prorogation and a new Session seem to me to be self-evidently valid. I am not advocating that, but that point is self-evidently valid and I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you confirm to the House that the point of the rule in “Erskine May” was to stop the bullying of the legislature by the Executive? We should exclude the fact that MPs may be either strong-armed, bullied or bribed with issues such as the sacking of the civil servant who is currently in charge of the Brexit negotiations—who, by the way, was overheard in a Brussels bar predicting that what we have seen with meaningful vote 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ad infinitum, would be the Government's way of getting this botched deal through the House. The “Erskine May” rules are there precisely to avoid the kind of spectacle we have been witnessing in the past few months. Will you take all the Government’s other behaviours—ignoring votes of Parliament, making a distinction between votes that somehow are binding and others that are not binding, refusing to grant Opposition days, and beginning not to vote on Opposition days and to ignore the motions that the House passes, thereby devaluing Parliament’s opinion—into account as you judge meaningful vote 3 and any motion that the Government bring forward?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. I will reflect carefully on what she said to me. She is an extremely experienced and seasoned parliamentarian and, of course, a former shadow Leader of the House, so I will factor into my thinking the considerations that she has adduced. I do not think there is one single rationale for the emergence and continuation of the convention. I touched on some of the thinking behind it in my statement. It would be true to say that a concern with the judicious use of parliamentary time, when that time is finite, and the avoidance of its wastage is an important factor. Another important factor is ensuring clarity and consistency so far as the statute book is concerned. Associated with and underlying all that is a concept of respect for the importance of decisions made by the House and the weight to be attached to them. I will reflect carefully on these matters.

I say gently to the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg)—because I failed to respond to this point, which was very good and wittily delivered—that so far as tradition is concerned, he has a perfectly fair point. A tradition does matter and is important. What I would say to him is that just because it is not desirable to follow precedent in every case, irrespective of circumstance, that does not mean it is justified not to follow it. It depends on the particular circumstance. For example, it depends whether one is facilitating the House and allowing the expression of an opinion that might otherwise be denied, as was the case on 9 January.

In this case, of course, where we are talking about the same-question rule, I have already explained that this matter has been treated of by the House, so the question of whether a subsequent motion is the same, or substantially the same, is a live matter for consideration and judgment at the appropriate time. In fact, that seems to me to be so obviously commonsensical an observation that only an extraordinarily sophisticated person, perhaps bereft of such common sense, could fail to grasp it. The hon. Gentleman most certainly would not fall into that category, because he is both extraordinarily sophisticated and blessed, I feel sure, with a very large supply of common sense.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have said memorably in the past that, sometimes, we have to take the rough with the smooth. Well, it seems to me that, today, that applies to others. May I ask whether this principle applies in other contexts as well? For instance, the House voted a few weeks ago on what became known as the Cooper-Boles amendment to overturn Standing Order No. 14(1), essentially to take control of the Order Paper for a day. That was rejected. Last week, the House then voted against what became the Benn amendment, which was, I would argue, substantially similar to the original Cooper-Boles amendment to take control of the Order Paper and override Standing Order No. 14(1). Now you on that occasion, Sir, judged that it was permissible to ask this question because it was not exactly the same as the first one. May I offer you a thought that if there were to be a third variant of that, if it were to be substantially the same, then, to be consistent, Sir, you would have to rule that out, too?

[Mr Speaker]

I am always grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I have often reminded the House, and I say this for the benefit of those attending to our proceedings, that I first came to know him in September 1983 when I unkindly and wrongly suggested that, intellectually, he was knee-high to a grasshopper. That was very unfair of me and, to his great credit, he did not appear to bear any grudge and we have got on pretty well over the ensuing 35 and a half years. I always listen to his advice. The answer is that everything depends on context and circumstance—[Interruption.] Yes, of course it does; manifestly and incontrovertibly it does. It is a question not of abstract principle or wallowing, as Edmund Burke would say, in the realms of metaphysical abstraction, but of attending to circumstance, and I would look at that with the important considerations and principle of which he has reminded me in the forefront of my mind in making a judgment. He is absolutely entitled to raise that point and I would indeed have to weigh up very carefully whether a proposition was in fact the same or substantially the same or whether it could credibly be contended that it was different.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Ind)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is what happens when you do not seek consensus and compromise from the beginning, but lay down red lines and doggedly stick to them with an act of stubbornness and brinkmanship that has brought us to this point. The crisis that is now upon the country has to be unprecedented. We are due to leave the European Union in 11 days and there is no plan and there is no certainty, and this country, especially business, is crying out for them.

Mr Speaker, what would you now expect the Government to do? We are relying on tweets, rumours and spin from No.10 and, as I have said, the clock is ticking. I say with no disrespect to those sitting on the Treasury Bench that there is no senior Member here from Government who can help us with a timetable—[Interruption.] I said a senior Member who can help us with a timetable. [Interruption.] Now, we have that senior Member—the Leader of the House—with a timetable. I meant no disrespect to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Mr Speaker, what do you now expect in terms of this timetable so that, in this crisis, we can make progress and do the right thing by the country?

[Mr Speaker]

What I have to say to the right hon. Lady is threefold. First, there was already present in the Chamber—before the arrival of the Leader of the House whom we welcome to our proceedings—the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions who, by any standard, must be considered to be senior. I will not get into a vulgar argument about the respective levels of seniority of different hon. and right hon. Members, and there are, of course, different forms of seniority, but the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was already present and the Leader of the House has now joined us.

I say to the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) that it is not for me to say what the Government should do, but it would be helpful to the House to have the earliest possible indication of how the Government intend to proceed in this important matter. Of course, we may learn more about the Government’s intentions as a result of the upcoming urgent question that I have granted to the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), who applied to me for that question this morning. I have every expectation that the right hon. Member for Broxtowe and many others will be in their places for that, so we will learn more anon.

Colleagues’ disposition—in other words, what they choose to do and how they wish to proceed—is a matter for them. The role of the Speaker is to seek to facilitate the House and, if I may say so—and I will—to have a particular regard for the concerns of Back-Bench Members, who should be heard in this place. Part of the responsibility of the Speaker is, frankly, to speak truth to power. I have always done that and, no matter what, I always will, because I think that is the proper thing to do. Others can proceed as they wish, but I have never been pushed around and I am not going to start now.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As a newish Member of this House, I thank you for the clarity of your statement, and for confirming that everything depends on context and circumstance. Since the vote last Tuesday, this House has voted against a second referendum, against the Cooper-Boles amendment—twice—and against a no-deal Brexit in 11 days’ time. Are those the sort of decisions that, in your view, affect the context and circumstances on which this House might make its own decision?

[Mr Speaker]

I think the context is a freestanding matter. It depends on the situation at the time, and that is partly a matter of opinion. All government—all influence of human beings upon another—ultimately rests upon opinion, and it depends on what the situation is more widely. I know that the hon. Lady would not seek to entice me—because that would be unkind of her and she would not do that—to pronounce on other questions that are not today before the House. I would not do that, but I would reflect on them in the circumstances of the time, and it is perfectly reasonable that I should be asked to do so if that situation arises.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I do apologise to the Chair of the Brexit Select Committee, whom I should have called several minutes ago.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In distinguishing between the character of the first meaningful vote and the second, in your statement you drew attention to the fact that, in the second meaningful vote, the Government had brought back additional documents, assurances and legal agreements that had not be contained within the first. Does your statement suggest in any way that, in order for a third meaningful vote not to fall within the statement that you have just made, it would require further changes to be agreed with the European Union, rather than, for example, the Government saying that they are prepared to make an offer to a particular party represented in this Chamber about its participation in future arrangements? In other words, would there have to be new political agreement under section 13(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in order for such a motion to be in order, as opposed to not in order?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I would say—preliminarily and off the top of my head—that, in all likelihood, the answer to his question is yes; I do think that a demonstrable change to the proposition would be required. For example, simply a change in an opinion about something would not itself constitute a change in the offer. I would have to look at the particulars and make an honest assessment of the circumstances, and perhaps of the competing claims made as to the veracity of one proposition, argument or another, but, fundamentally, for something to be different, it has to be, by definition, fundamentally different—not different in terms of wording, but different in terms of substance—and this is in the context of a negotiation with others outside the United Kingdom. That would be my initial feeling.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not envy you in trying to make these difficult decisions. First, can I press you on your understanding of what is substantively different? For example, were the Government to come back with a proposition that they would write into law the Stormont lock, would that be substantively different? If there were to be commentary that changed our opinion of this at the European Council, would that be substantially different? Many Members of this House feel that having taken no deal off the table, which I voted against, already makes the situation substantially different, so will you say a little more about that?

Secondly, Mr Speaker, you listed some precedents starting with 1604, which is very interesting to new Members. Some Members were already here; I was not, as a new Member. We are in an unprecedented situation in which we have voted for a referendum, giving sovereignty to those it belongs to—the people—and we are now bound by that decision. How will you deal with this unprecedented situation? My constituents who are worried about their jobs, or worried about losing the Brexit they voted for, will always prefer you, instead of rigidly sticking with precedents from 1604, to be a modern Speaker for modern times who cannot stand in the way of delivering the early deal that I believe will solve this problem.

[Mr Speaker]

With the very greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that I have demonstrated, over a period of nine and a half years and more, that I am not a stickler for tradition. I do not believe in doing everything the same way for ever more just because people say to me, as so many have, “Oh, Mr Speaker, it’s always been done that way, or, “Oh, we’ve never previously had X.” I have been ready to countenance change. I remember once being told many years ago by a retired and senior Clerk of this House that she was very pleased that I had secured support for the establishment of a nursery in the House that Members and staff could pay for. She said to me that she did not know whether I was aware that throughout her four decades’ service in the House, the idea of establishing such a facility had periodically been discussed but unfortunately nothing had ever happened, which was not helpful to her in terms of work/life balance—her professional commitments and her childcare responsibilities. So I think I can say, with the very greatest respect, that I have attempted to be a progressive change-maker. As for the particulars concerned, it has to depend on the circumstances. I would have to look at the specifics. It would be reckless and foolhardy to pronounce in the abstract.

I would say further to the hon. Gentleman, just to remind him of the context of my statement, that, as regards the use of time, we have been addressing this matter for a period spanning four months. In so far as time has been lost during that period—for example, at one point, a loss of five weeks without the matter coming to the House—that was not a result of fiat by the Chair or folly by the House; it was the express decision of the Government. I cannot, off the top of my head, remember for certain whether the hon. Gentleman supported the Government’s position on that matter. I have a very high regard for his ability, because he is an extremely able man. I hope he will not take offence if I say, in the nicest possible way, that he has always seemed to me to be a keen supporter of close regulatory alignment with the Government Whips Office.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for your guidance today. Here we are in the gravest constitutional situation that I have seen in my nearly 40 years in this House, and were it not for your good guidance today and over the past few weeks, I think this House would have been very badly served indeed. The fact of the matter is that what you have said today has great repercussions for the business of the House. What is your advice from the Chair, or could we have an early statement from the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House, on what is the next step? We are leaving the European Union and we have only a few days. What is the best way that we can represent our constituents at this grave time of crisis?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is: let us debate these matters sooner rather than later. Of course the Government, for the most part, control the Order Paper—we know that, and the Leader of the House is the Government’s representative in the House—but there are situations in which Members can give voice to their views, whether the Government particularly want that to happen or not. For example, on more than 570 occasions over the last nine and a half years, I have seen fit to grant urgent questions, believing that that is in the interests of the House, is beneficial to Back Benchers and secures ministerial presence in the Chamber, so that the Government can be legitimately questioned, probed, scrutinised, challenged and held to account. There will be further such opportunities today, and knowing the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman, who will have served 40 years in the House in less than two months’ time, I feel certain that he will be well up to the task of posing suitable inquiries and expressing his views on this matter in the days ahead.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are correct that “Erskine May” says:

“A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”

That is absolutely clear. When you allowed the second meaningful vote, your ruling was clearly a balanced decision, but “Erskine May” seems to be clear that it is about whether the motion is substantially changed, not whether something else has happened—that is irrelevant; it is what has happened to the motion. We have in this House the procedure of use of the previous question, which I was thinking of using. The reason why we have it is so that the same question can continue to be debated another time. Can you confirm that this is about the substance of the motion, not something else happening?

[Mr Speaker]

It is about the substance of the motion—what it is commending to the House, and what proposition is being put. It is not a question purely of the words, but of the meaning, the intention and the purpose.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have made today a very important and dramatic statement. Already constituents are getting in touch with me to ask exactly what that means, and we have to be clear with the country about what you have said. The Government cannot bring back another meaningful vote if it is the same in substance as the last one. The Government’s one and only intention is to achieve and secure that. This week, they intended to do that very thing, and now you have said that that cannot happen. Stressing that for clarity would be abundantly helpful.

My experience of this Government—I do not know whether it is yours—is that they will try anything to get this through, and they will have the impertinence to try to bring this back once again in any guise that they think will be possible; perhaps it will be under the guise of the Democratic Unionist party agreeing with their deal. How do you intend to be vigilant about that prospect? Under what criteria will a motion be assessed, if the Government bring one back and try to present it as being significantly different from their last one? How do we judge what they are doing, so that this ruling can stand? It is an important ruling, and it is correct.

[Mr Speaker]

It seems to me that it is principally a question of whether the proposition is the same, or substantially the same. I would confer. I would of course seek advice. I would have my eyes and ears open. I am looking to serve the House, to reflect its interests and to demonstrate respect for its wishes. I simply repeat that the convention is there for a purpose, and that purpose seems to me to be an honourable and valid purpose. I am afraid that I will have to look at the particulars in the light of what is presented, but I hope that the Government would feel that respect for procedure matters.

I note that, as the hon. Gentleman asks his question and I respond, the Leader of the House is playing with her electronic device, as is the Deputy Chief Whip. I did not include him in the category of very senior people in the House, but I readily grant that that is a debatable proposition. It would seem to me to be helpful if people showed respect for each other in these circumstances, and if, when in the Chamber, they listened to what others had to say. However, if they choose not to do so, so be it. I try to show good manners, and I hope others will try to do so as well.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand your clarity on this. A second referendum was overwhelmingly rejected by the House of Commons in a vote last week; does this mean that if that is brought back, you will apply the same considerations, so that such a motion is not repeated?

[Mr Speaker]

I did indicate to earlier inquisitors that everything depends on the circumstance. Is the proposition fundamentally the same, or can it be argued that, in the circumstances of the time, it is a different proposition? I would have to look at that in the circumstances of the time. Is it a relevant factor to be considered? Of course it is, and that is why I have articulated the convention in the way I have done.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, are you able to update the House on any sanctions that might have been applied since 1604 to any Governments who have sought to re-table the same motion, and what such sanctions are available to you today? Over a number of months, we have tabled a succession of amendments in relation to a people’s vote, and I want your reassurance and clarification that there is nothing in what you have said that precludes our pressing another amendment on the matter of a people’s vote.

[Mr Speaker]

As I have just said to the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), it depends on the context or the circumstances. I cannot yet know in what situation a proposition may be put.

The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) asks me about sanctions. I am not aware of any particular sanctions, other than that if a proposition is judged to be the same or substantially the same, it will not find its way on to the Order Paper. There may be instances in which this has been dishonoured or inadvertently neglected, but I referenced in my statement the fact that the absence of Speaker intervention since 1920 is attributable not to the discontinuation of the convention, but to general compliance with it. For the most part, the convention has not been invoked in respect of Governments, but I would argue that that is not least because, on the whole, Governments have tended to comply with the convention.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Do you concede that had you made this statement in fundamentally the same way between the first and second presentations of a meaningful vote, there might have been Members of this House who, believing that the second meaningful vote was their last opportunity to vote positively on the question, would have changed their minds? When there are particularly fast-moving negotiations, we have sometimes seen substantial, if subtle, changes to an agreement during a debate and before a vote. May I inquire how, in that instance, you would assess the validity of another presentation of the meaningful vote?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman’s latter point is nuanced, and I think it would be sensible to say, I am afraid—because I think it will disappoint him, but it happens to have the advantage of being true—that I would have to look at the particulars. I cannot possibly be expected to pontificate, or even speculate idly, on an abstract proposition. I would have to look at the reality of what was on the table.

I have always had a great fondness for the hon. Gentleman, but on his first point, I have to say that although the Speaker tries to be helpful to the House, it is not my responsibility, and I would not ordinarily be expected, to hold Members’ hand in advising them on how they should vote in a particular circumstance. Members are perfectly capable of making those judgments for themselves. The reason I did not make a statement at an earlier stage, I say in terms that brook of no misunderstanding, is that no such statement was required, for the simple reason that I adduced in my statement: the second vote on 12 March and the debate that preceded it were entirely proper; there was not a breach of the convention. For the hon. Gentleman to say that it would have been helpful if I had said what I did not say at a time that I could have said it because it might have assisted Members, who as a result of it not being said were not helped, is not altogether helpful, and I am not sure that his logic is impeccable.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for your statement today. The Government have gained an infamous historical reputation for trickery and abuse of Parliament during this whole process, and already rumours are going around that they might seek to use prorogation as a method of getting out of this. Can you confirm that that would not only provoke a greater constitutional crisis, but also result in us losing every single piece of legislation currently before both Houses, including many of the pieces of legislation needed to implement any Brexit?

[Mr Speaker]

If particular legislation was subject to carry-over, that would not apply, but in the expectation, let us say—or, to use a more neutral term, in the circumstance—that it was not subject to the carry-over procedure, manifestly and incontrovertibly it would fall. As for whether the Government are contemplating that, I have no way of knowing. No Minister has indicated that to me. I have no idea what is in their mind. It would be an unusual step, but look: I have been in this place a little over 20 years, and some quite unusual things have happened. I have no way of knowing whether this is being contemplated.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In 1604 and in 1920, we were a sovereign Parliament, and we were not subject to the EU constitution, which this House voted for under the Lisbon treaty. This House has passed legislation under article 50 for us to leave the European Union, which is time-sensitive. Parliament could proceed in a rather stately manner in 1920, because it was not subject to such things, but we as a Parliament have voted to leave on a particular date; therefore there is a certain importance to making decisions prior to that date, and not in the next Session.

Secondly, the meaningful vote in itself is a constitutional innovation. It was this Parliament trying to impose on the Government greater parliamentary scrutiny. In that process, the Government have brought forward votes—more votes than most of us expected, and with more amendments than most of us expected. There was a degree of constitutional innovation in what you ruled during that process, Mr Speaker, in order to involve Parliament. Given the time-sensitive nature of the proposal, and given that this Parliament wanted to be involved, I can see no reason why we should not be put through the pain of perhaps another vote.

I stress that the article 50 legislation went through this House and the withdrawal Act went through this House. Every Member of this House expects to have a say on the type of Brexit that we will actually undertake. Sometimes, even if we are dealing with a matter that has been dealt with before, it is important that this House makes a decision or decides not to make a decision; but not considering the matter again could in itself have consequences.

[Mr Speaker]

Again, one has to reflect on the particulars. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the issue is not the pain of any vote, which is a subjective matter upon which I do not think I should pontificate—especially as I do not cast such, other than in the circumstance of a tie, which has not arisen since 1993 in this Chamber—but its propriety.

It is absolutely true that the House has legislated in respect of article 50—I believe it did so in March 2017 in the last Parliament—and that that has created a strong expectation, but whether Parliament chooses to legislate on this matter or, as the Government have signalled in recent days, depending on circumstance, to request a particular extension, is a matter for the House. I do not think that the issue of pain really comes into it; it is just a question of what is proper.

I know that the hon. Gentleman, whom I have known since we competed with each other in Bristol South in June 1989, is a stickler for propriety. [Interruption.] I am asked who won. It would not be seemly to say, but I think the hon. Gentleman’s result at the 1992 election was rather better than mine.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Obviously we fully endorse and respect your statement. On a point of clarification, I want to ask something that I am sure people out there will be asking when they read this statement today. On 29 January, the House of Commons voted against the SNP and Plaid Cymru amendment on extending the article 50 period and ruling out no deal by 327 votes to 39. We obviously voted again on those matters last week. Will you clarify why that did not fall under the same ruling?

[Mr Speaker]

I would have to look back at those particular votes. I did not receive advice at that time about non-compliance. I do not think that there was a general sense in the House that there was an issue of non-compliance, and I was not asked to rule on it. Matters are already treated of by the Table Office on the basis of established custom and practice. If those matters were accepted on to the paper, the issue of selection would have been for me, in the interests of facilitating the debate. However, the issue of propriety was not raised with me at that time.

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Most people who watch our deliberations are watching with increasing amazement. They do not understand the nuances of the twists and changes with which we go about our business here. To many of them, what we are doing at the moment makes very little sense at all; they want to get on with things.

May I ask you, Mr Speaker, as the custodian of the reputation of this House, whether you really think it was right to bring forward this ruling today, at this stage, rather than perhaps last week, because many of us are looking forward to voting again one way or another this week? Perhaps you can inform the House how you came to this opinion and when, and say whether it would have been better at the time of the second vote to announce that there would not be time to have a third vote.

[Mr Speaker]

I am a little taken aback by the inquiry from the right hon. Gentleman. I signalled to the hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) why I did not think any statement was required at that time. It is, of course, true that the House passed a motion on Thursday that specified a potential end date for an agreement to be reached. It specified that if an agreement was reached by that date, a particular extension to article 50—if memory serves me, to the end of June—would be requested of the Union. Why did I not say anything at that time? The motion that was passed was not in respect of the withdrawal agreement, and I could have had no way of knowing at that time whether revisions to the agreement or the accompanying declaration would be sought, let alone obtained.

I can be expected to rule only at the material time. If I had ruled—[Interruption.] I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, because I know that he has a great sense of fair play. If I had ruled last week, I think I can say with complete confidence that there would have been people accusing me of being hasty and premature, and commending to me the idea of waiting. I thought that it was appropriate to reflect on the matter over a period of days, and I am saying what I am saying before the Government table a new proposition. It seems to me timely to say it now, rather than to wait several days, but to have done so several days ago did not seem to me to be warranted. I have made my best judgment in the interests of the House as an institution, and of its individual Members.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are obviously right that the House does not wish to vote on the same proposition over and again. Equally, I am sure that you will be aware of the fact that some hon. Members were interested in meaningful votes because at that time, they would be able to vote on amendments on matters that we have not yet considered. If the Government are unable to make any changes to their proposition, I seek your guidance on how we might secure opportunities for voting on those alternative propositions. I heard you talk about urgent questions, but of course, there is no vote on an urgent question or a statement, and a Standing Order No. 24 motion is in neutral terms. The Government have not been very generous recently in offering Opposition day debates either, so I seek your advice on how hon. Members might proceed.

[Mr Speaker]

Obviously, it would be helpful to the Opposition if Opposition days were supplied. That has not happened recently and I have no way of knowing whether the Leader of the House has it in mind to provide for Opposition days. I think that colleagues would think that it was a democratic and seemly thing to do to ensure that the principal Opposition party had the requisite allocation of days. So far as other business is concerned, the hon. Lady should look closely at the Standing Order No. 24 procedure. What she says about it is true, but I think that she should reflect upon the opportunities that the Standing Order No. 24 procedure presents, because the opportunities are fuller than has traditionally been acknowledged or taken advantage of by Members of the House of Commons.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You helpfully reminded us at the beginning of your statement of the size of the majority against in the vote that took place last week. I think that most observers would feel that, for that to be turned around and for the motion to pass, it would require a significant change. As I understand it from your ruling this afternoon, if, perhaps at the European Council in a few days’ time, a significant change could be achieved, you would allow a further meaningful vote on that basis.

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman is very fair-minded and, what is more, he is perceptive. I think I hinted at that, perhaps not with the crystal clarity that he has brought to bear on the subject, but in essence, he is right: if there is a substantially different proposition put as a result of revisions sought and obtained and new agreement reached, that would constitute a new proposition to be put to the House. I would have to look at the particulars and I am not committing to a specific at this moment, but I think nobody could outdo the right hon. Gentleman today by way of reasonableness.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

A Kingston knight, no less. I call Sir Edward Davey.

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In our current constitutional crisis, I welcome your reaffirmation of the rule of law in this House—namely, “Erskine May”—and the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Given the gravity of the situation, though, could you enlighten the House as to whether “Erskine May” makes any provision for a Speaker’s Conference to bring together all parties in the House under your chairmanship to try to find a way forward?

[Mr Speaker]

There can always be Speaker’s Conferences, though I must say—I do not direct this particularly at this Government at all; it is a wider observation—that it is a perhaps curious and quaint fact that ordinarily, Speaker’s Conferences are convened at the instigation of the Government of the day. Indeed, I recall a particular occasion some years ago when I had some interest in the possibility of a Speaker’s Conference on aspects of parliamentary power. If I said to the right hon. Gentleman that the reaction to my suggestion at the time from the then Leader of the House was not wildly enthusiastic, I think that I would be somewhat understating the position. But that was then, and maybe the new Leader of the House, or relatively new Leader of the House, who has been a notable reformer in other respects, will be seized by the salience of what the right hon. Gentleman has commended to the House and will feel that she could have a key role in initiating such an important constitutional development. If she did, I would be perfectly willing to play ball with it. I have no idea; it is not something she and I have discussed, but you never know.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to be very clear: I am indeed a reforming Leader of the House of Commons. For me, treating colleagues with courtesy and respect is at the forefront of that reform. Any Speaker’s council would have to have that at its heart, and I simply would not be confident that that would be the case.

[Hon. Members]

Oh!

[Mr Speaker]

Well, so be it. I treat the House with respect. I have treated its Members with respect. I chaired a previous Speaker’s Conference, and there was no criticism of the way in which I did so. One reason why the Leader of the House might not be well versed in that particular Speaker’s Conference and in a position to make a judgment about my chairmanship of it is very simply that it took place before the right hon. Lady entered the House of Commons.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This House runs on conventions, as you have already made clear in your statement today. One of those conventions is that Treasury Benchers always tell Opposition Front Benchers of statements they are going to make. To clarify, can you confirm to the House that you not only informed the Leader of the House of your intention to make this statement but told her the contents of your statement?

[Mr Speaker]

I absolutely cannot confirm anything of the sort. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that his understanding about what might happen between the usual channels is one thing; that absolutely does not apply to Speaker’s statements. If the hon. Gentleman—

[Dr Offord]

Why not?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman shrugs and says, “Why not?” That has never been the case. The Speaker of the House makes statements to the House at a time when the Speaker of the House thinks that they will be of interest and benefit to the House. I am under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to pre-announce that statement, either to the Leader of the House or to the shadow Leader of the House, and I did not do so. If the hon. Gentleman—a keen student of parliamentary procedure—is offended by that fact, well, I am sorry, and he is of course welcome to be offended, but there is absolutely no breach of parliamentary protocol or etiquette whatsoever. That is the reality, and I have explained the position in terms clear and unmistakable.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you confirm that a meaningful vote would be intrinsically different if it included the provision for a confirmatory vote by way of a public vote?

[Mr Speaker]

Again, I would have to look at the particulars. I would look at the specifics; I would assess what was being proposed; and I would make a judgment about it. I prefer at this stage to rest on what I have already said about the principle that something should be different, not the same or substantially the same. I would have to look at the specifics in the circumstances of the time.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are now 11 days, six hours, 21 minutes and about 40 seconds from leaving. This can be described as nothing other than a constitutional crisis. Can you advise us how we can bring forward an emergency motion on revoking article 50?

[Mr Speaker]

Emergency motions—I say this as much for the benefit of people observing our proceedings as for Members of the House—are capable of being requested under Standing Order No. 24. The hon. Lady will know that any Member can apply for the right to conduct a Standing Order No. 24 debate on a motion and that that request is, in the first instance, submitted to me. If I decide that the application can be made in a speech of up to three minutes, it is made on the Floor of the House. If I decide that the application is valid, and the application is supported, the debate can take place, and there is nothing to stop such debates taking place in the ensuing days. Many have taken place before—obviously, on nothing like the scale of urgent questions—and I have no reason to suppose that it will be different in the future.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Does the House have the authority to suspend the Standing Orders that prevent motions from being brought back to the House in the same form?

[Mr Speaker]

The Clerk of the House has confirmed my own understanding, which is that the House is the custodian of its own Standing Orders. The Standing Orders are a matter for the House, and they can be changed. That has happened before, and it could conceivably happen again. So the answer to the central inquiry is yes.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any definition, in terms of precedent, of the meaning of the term “substantial change”? If there is not, can you confirm that that does not preclude you from making a novel decision?

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry if this disappoints the hon. Gentleman, but it is context-specific, and it is a judgment for the Chair. The Chair seeks to make a judgment on the basis of what will be in the interests of the House. I do not think that I can say fairer than that, or say anything different. I hope that that is useful to colleagues.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you clarify a point? Is it the case that you have not ruled out a third meaningful vote, and it is just a matter of that vote’s being conditional on other matters applying, in the motion as well as in the substance?

[Mr Speaker]

I think that I explained the position to the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale). It depends on the specific terms of what is proposed. Forgive me—I do not mean this discourteously in any way—but I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here throughout our exchanges. Maybe he was; I do not know. What I was seeking to convey, however, was that a new proposition could be put, but the convention would militate against the same, or substantially the same, proposition being put. So I am not closing the door, and, indeed, I specifically said towards the end of my statement that this ruling should not be regarded as my last word on the subject. It is simply meant to indicate the test that the Government must meet for me to rule that a third meaningful vote can legitimately be held during the current parliamentary Session. I do not see that I can expand on that, nor should I be required today to do so.

[Mark Pritchard]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.] I think that the Speaker decides. Would your advice to those who are, perhaps, becoming exercised about this be, “Don’t panic”?

[Mr Speaker]

I am always inclined to say, “Don’t panic.” I am not in the business of panicking myself. I think I can safely say that I have never lost a wink of sleep over any work-related matter. There is no merit or purpose in doing so. I think that we should approach these matters with calm, deploy reason, and seek to make sensible judgments, not just in our own interests and the interests of the House, but in the interests of the people whom we are sent here to represent. I have always done that, and I am sure that that is what colleagues think it is right to do, including, most certainly, the hon. Gentleman.

I am most grateful to colleagues for the interest that they have shown and the inquiries that they have put, and I thank them for their involvement.

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend raises a concerning constituency issue. He will know that we have launched a comprehensive review of our railways, to build on the success of privatisation and get the best from both public and private sectors. He might like to seek an Adjournment debate so that Transport Ministers can respond to his particular concerns directly.

[Mr Speaker]

The star of the show, Helen Jones.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This morning on the radio, the Chancellor echoed the Prime Minister in saying that this House must decide not just what it does not want but what it does want. Yet next week’s business is filled up with statutory instruments, many of which could be taken in Committee. Given that the Leader of the House is not only the spokesperson for the Government but a champion of the rights of the House, when will she make time for a series of indicative votes to allow the House to express its will on what it does want in negotiations with the EU?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I can assure the hon. Lady that I take seriously my responsibility to be the voice of Parliament in Government, and all the time I reflect the views that I hear in the Chamber. I am pleased to be able, for example, to give time for statutory instruments to be debated in the Chamber on request from the Opposition, and to give a great deal of time for general debates that have been requested by hon. and right hon. Members across the House. In response to her question about the business for next week, I am sure that she will appreciate that today the House is being invited to consider whether it wishes the Government to seek an extension to article 50. Until we have established an answer to that question, we cannot consider what are the next steps.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) is an authentic representative of the Scottish scouting movement, I believe.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. On Friday night I visited Fifth Clyde Broomhouse Scouts group in my constituency, which kindly gave me this necktie. Can we have a statement from the Government encouraging people to join their local scout group? When the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box, will she give a firm thank you to the volunteers who go out on a Friday night to invest in young lives?

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Yet again the House has been given an emergency motion, and yet again we have only just had sight of it—a colleague has managed to get us copies of it. This is no way to run a Government and no way to run a country. We now have a situation where the Government are voting against their own motions, which is a terrible state of affairs. The Government are staggering from week to week, day to day, and motion to motion. The country deserves better.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the House.

[Andrea Leadsom]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

The Leader of the House does not wish to comment. Fair enough. It is a business statement, so she can respond if she wishes but she does not wish to do so.

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

It is no wonder that the Leader of the House chose not to respond, because that was a pathetic statement, given tonight’s events and the chaotic cluelessness at the heart of Government. The public must be watching this place and wondering what on earth is going on. The Prime Minister gave a petulant and unsatisfactory response to the preceding events. This Government are still determined to flog a dead deal, but at some point they are going to have to accept that the game is over.

We have just got sight of tomorrow’s motion and it seems to me that it is readily amendable. All we need to get rid of is the first two parts and we will get to what this House really wants and requires, which is an indefinite extension of article 50 until we get the issue resolved. The will of the House has to be respected in these matters.

I have seen the provisional business for next week and there is nothing in it—nothing at all—so the Government could table a motion that reflects the wish of this House to legislate to take no deal off the table. Is that in the thinking of the Leader of the House, and does she intend to do it? That is what this House expects, and it is now what this country expects.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that the revocation of article 50 would mean not leaving the EU and so would put us in direct contravention of the will of the people expressed in the referendum, and the Government will not be doing that.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I simply say to colleagues that I think it is clear that whatever the House decides, it will not be a state secret. It will become public. It will be known. The message will be communicated. In fairness, I think the Leader of the House has acknowledged that whatever the House decides, it will be communicated to the European Union. That will happen, and the wording of what has been decided will be absolutely crystal clear. The will of the House will be forwarded to the European Union, whatever that will is.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Given that we have seen plenty of briefings indicating that meaningful vote No. 3 will take place at some point next week, and given that the pound appears to be going tonto just about every day, can the Leader of the House tell us when meaningful vote No. 3 will be, so that the markets can be prepared for the same nonsense again next week?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

As I have said to a number of Members, the Government are listening very carefully to the views of the House. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that if the meaningful vote was not passed, we would come back to the House today with a vote on rejecting a no-deal Brexit, and in the event that that was passed, we would come back to the House tomorrow to seek its views on an extension of article 50. That is exactly what we are doing. The Prime Minister has further said—as have I, just now—that if the House wants an extension of article 50, we will seek to agree that with the European Union, but what Members must understand is that it is not in the Government’s gift to insist on an extension. That will be a matter for agreement with the European Union.

[Mr Speaker]

I think everyone is aware of that. I do not wish to be unkind to the Leader of the House, but I do not think she is telling us anything that we do not know. We all know that.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Members are asking me the same old question.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, repetition is not an unknown phenomenon in the House of Commons. I understand what the Leader of the House is saying, but I think everyone is perfectly well aware that an extension request is just that: a request.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

In claiming that the Government are listening, the Leader of the House really is stretching the boundaries of credibility. The Prime Minister was told after Chequers that the Chequers proposals did not command a majority of the House. She ignored that, and went off to Brussels. She then came back with something worse, and feigned surprise when, funnily enough, the House did not vote for it.

The Prime Minister and the Government have now been told twice—not by small numbers, but by unprecedented, historic numbers—that this deal does not command the support of the House of Commons. What the Leader of the House is trying to stand up this evening is, as has already been said, meaningful vote No. 3, and that will not succeed either. All that she is doing—or facilitating, as Leader of the House—is running down the clock, limiting our options and harming our country. I think that that is reckless and irresponsible, and it is not how she should be behaving as Leader of the House. Can she tell us when she plans to bring us meaningful vote No. 3? Why not do it tomorrow, so that we can inflict the defeat sooner rather than later?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind—and I am always interested to hear his views—I would prefer to conclude the exchanges on the emergency business statement and if he is still keen to raise his point of order then I shall be happy to hear him.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

When we were in talks with the Prime Minister before—probably a month or six weeks ago—she was absolutely adamant that it was no deal, her deal or revocation. Now the Government have pivoted to extension. So why is there this change of position? Why did they not stick to no deal, her deal or revocation? Her deal is dead so it is now between no deal or revocation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

The motion that has been laid suggests that the House will carry on its debate until 5 pm, but that is a matter for the House to agree.

[Mr Speaker]

In other words, it is an amendable motion.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I would like to ask the Leader of the House whether it is still a convention that if a Government Minister breaks a three-line Whip, they are expected to resign.

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I thank the Leader of the House for that, but I am astonished at this business statement. We still have no idea on this, despite the Prime Minister setting out the next steps. We have had a vote and, as the Prime Minister herself said, we are now into an emergency business statement. This is callous and it is incompetence from the Government, and it is a discourtesy to the House and to the country.

[Mr Speaker]

I think what the Leader of the House is saying is that there would be a further business statement tomorrow—presumably she means after tomorrow’s debate and vote. Those points have been put on the record and I note what the shadow Leader of the House has said. I am happy to hear other points of order at this stage.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could the Leader of the House tell us whether there will be protected time for the debate tomorrow, given that there will be an important statement first?

[Mr Speaker]

Forgive me, but I want to facilitate the House. Let us continue the exchanges on the business statement, as the hon. Gentleman’s inquiry is really for the benefit of the Leader of the House, to which she can respond.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The motion will be brought forward in the usual way and it will be for the House to agree.

[Andrea Leadsom]

What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is really just to repeat what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, which is that if the House votes to leave without a deal on 29 March, it will be the policy of the Government to implement that decision. If the House declines to approve leaving without a deal on 29 March, the Government will, following that vote, bring forward a motion on Thursday on whether Parliament wants to seek an extension to article 50.

[Mr Speaker]

If it is helpful, I can inform the House that I understand that the Government’s motion for tomorrow’s debate has now been tabled. Colleagues who are thinking of tabling amendments, or who simply want to study the motion in the Table Office, have the opportunity to do so if they wish.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

For the benefit of everyone in the Chamber, it really would be extremely helpful if the Leader of the House would confirm whether protected time will be available for the debate tomorrow. We do not want it to be scrunched into a very short period of time. There may be urgent questions and statements and we may be left with perhaps a matter of minutes. We do not want a repeat of last night, when the Minister for the Cabinet Office came to make a key statement at 10 o’clock at night, and then to be left with very little time to assess the implications before the following morning. May we have a guarantee that protected time will be available? It is not an unreasonable demand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Eagle]

That’s not the answer!

[Mr Speaker]

I appreciate that that is not the answer the hon. Lady wants, but it is the answer she is getting tonight. I understand entirely where she is coming from, but these matters can all be explored in the days ahead, and I am absolutely certain that they will be.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I guess that if the Government have tabled the main motion, they have also tabled the Business of the House motion governing tomorrow, so I do not understand why the Leader of the House cannot just tell us what time the votes will be tomorrow. It would be for the convenience of Members who have families and so on to know, because we are substantially changing the business for one of the most important matters affecting the House. Will it be at 7 o’clock tomorrow evening? Will it be 5 o’clock or 7 o’clock on Thursday?

[Andrea Leadsom]

These are matters for the House to agree.

[Mr Speaker]

As I understand it at the moment, the Business of the House motion, I think, is proposing a 7 o’clock finish. A 7 o’clock finish is proposed, though, as the Leader of the House says, that is an amendable proposition. If colleagues want to propose amendments to that, they can.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Surely if the House votes against no deal tomorrow and for an extension, the simple and straightforward way for the Government to facilitate this under the EU (Withdrawal) Act is to bring forward a statutory instrument, which is something that they could do in 24 hours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am always up front, honest and open with the House. Should the House decline to leave the European Union without a future declaration and withdrawal agreement, then and only then will I come forward with a motion for the following day, which will be amendable; it will be for the House to determine what the proposed extension period should be. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

I do not know whether the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) is genuinely indignant or flummoxed. I hope that he is neither, although he certainly seems to be the former. To be fair, the Leader of the House has repeatedly said—[Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman should not chunter and witter away to no obvious benefit or purpose from a sedentary position when I am trying to assist him. The Leader of the House has repeatedly said that the Government would table a motion for Thursday, and that it would be amendable. As I indicated some several minutes ago in response to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) who inquired about my thinking in respect of amendments on Thursday, I would apply the same logic as I shall apply to tomorrow’s deliberations. There will be ample opportunity for Members to table amendments with what are, in effect, their own propositions and ideas for an extension, so I assure the hon. Member for Glasgow South that he will not be disadvantaged.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if we get to Thursday and this House is asked to apply to the European Union for an agreement on extending article 50, the extension has to be in agreement with the European Union and we cannot make the decision unilaterally?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I spent some time in the No Lobby tonight, which was even busier than usual. You will recall, Mr Speaker, that you had to ask the Serjeant at Arms to check the Lobby during the Division. The place was packed. Given that we will have another vote of significance tomorrow, and a vast majority of Members will probably vote to take no deal off the table, has the Leader of the House had any thoughts about introducing electronic voting and dragging us into the 21st century tomorrow night?

[Mr Speaker]

It is a tad ambitious for the hon. Gentleman to expect the Leader of the House to facilitate that tomorrow, but he never loses an opportunity. I understand his enthusiasm on that matter, which I rather share, but it is a matter of hot dispute within the House. The Leader of the House can respond if she wants, but she is not under any obligation to do so.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making me think of every Thursday morning. He raises that issue with me frequently, and I have always said that if the Procedure Committee wants to come forward with an appraisal of electronic voting, with huge support from around the House, I will always be delighted to consider it.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During our earlier exchange, you asked whether I was indignant or flummoxed. The phrase I would prefer to use is that I am bent out of shape with what has gone on here this evening. My question to the Leader of the House was nothing to do with procedure, which you tried to help me with. My question was whether there is anything to prevent her from telling the House what extension the Government have on offer in advance of publication of the motion, which you tell us is amendable, and rightly so. You know, I know, she knows and we all know that no deal will be ruled out substantially tomorrow night, and this motion will have to come forward.

The Leader of the House is probably sat there with this information in her substantial notes. I do not think she is that much out of the loop in the Government just yet; she will know what the extension might be. How can Members find that out, so that we are best prepared and furnished for tomorrow and Thursday’s debates? How can we prevent a situation where we are running around with amendments to a Government motion scribbled on napkins to hand in to you by half-past 10 o’clock or whatever time it might be on Thursday morning, and ensure that the Government are open with us?

[Mr Speaker]

That is a point of order for the Chair. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman—I hope this can be dealt with in a genial spirit—he is not one who suffers from a concern that, having made a point once, it would be excessive to repeat it. On the contrary, he is an experienced campaigner. I was taught by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) 30 years ago that quantity, persistence and, above all, repetition are as important as the quality of your arguments. Your arguments have to pass muster, but it is a great mistake to think you can just make a point once, persuade someone that you are right and he or she is wrong, and that is the end of it. In fact, you have to keep going over and over again.

The hon. Gentleman made his point in the form of an inquiry once, was not satisfied with the perfectly procedurally legitimate reply that he got from the Leader of the House and therefore waited several minutes before repeating, in a slightly fuller and extremely eloquent form, his own preoccupation. He has done that, but to be fair, I do not think he is going to get any further answer tonight. The Leader of the House has said what she said, and I think we will have to leave it there for tonight, but do I expect the hon. Gentleman to be in his place tomorrow, eager to favour the House with his views and leaping to his feet with alacrity? That is as predictable as the passage of the seasons.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Oh, very well. I will indulge the hon. Gentleman very briefly. [Interruption.] “No”, says one of his party colleagues, but I will indulge him.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am most flattered by all of that, but it does not actually answer my question, which was to you this time. Is there anything to prevent the Leader of the House, in advance of the motion being published, from telling us what its contents might be?

[Mr Speaker]

Quite possibly, there is the fact that the right hon. Lady does not wish, at this stage, to do so. I can think of another reason, which is that the precise terms of the motion for Thursday, particularly as it is contingent on what happens tomorrow, will not yet have been crafted. The Leader of the House does not need my help, but I am saving her the hassle of getting up at the Dispatch Box.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am very grateful, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I was genuinely trying to be helpful. It seems to me entirely reasonable not to have the wording yet, but there we go. Anyway, the right hon. Lady says she is grateful, and I will take her at her word.

[Pete Wishart]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House has continually and consistently said that the default position with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is to leave with no deal. That is the position, and I think everybody in the House agrees with that. If there is a vote tomorrow and the House votes overwhelmingly to take no deal off the table, the way to overturn that is for legislation to be introduced. Am I right in my understanding that legislation will be required in order to overturn the requirements of the withdrawal Act, and is there any indication that that legislation will be forthcoming if the House votes to take no deal off the table?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is getting into hypotheticals, which were deprecated—or, at any rate, resisted—by the Leader of the House. The answer is that I do not dissent from what the hon. Gentleman says about the legal position, but we are not at that point yet, and therefore I am reluctant to introduce new words into this exchange that are not required at this time. I am not disagreeing with him and I entirely understand the logic of what he is saying, but we are not at that point yet. The hon. Gentleman will be in his place on subsequent days, and I am sure he will give full voice to his conviction on this matter. I dare say others will, too, on either side of that argument.

I think it would be seemly if we now drew points of order to a close.

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank the Leader of the House for the very short business for next week and her very long speech on various other matters. I thought this was business questions.

I am absolutely staggered to hear what the Leader of the House says about the business next week. It would have been more appropriate to fulfil what the Prime Minister set out in her statement to this House on 26 February, rather than doing it the other way around and putting in debates that then have to be moved. That would have been more appropriate in the light of the utmost seriousness of what is going to happen to the country in the next few weeks.

The Leader of the House seems to be openly in defiance of the Prime Minister. We also see that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs appears to be announcing that the Easter recess will be cancelled. Will the Leader of the House confirm that he said to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that

“there may not be an Easter recess”?

More Government chaos: the Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill was pulled before it was debated on Monday. May I ask the Leader of the House why, because a very important cross-party amendment was going to be put to the House? Will she say why, and when is it likely to come back?

Something else that needs to come back to this House is the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union—[Interruption.] I am really sorry, but the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), has had her go. I need to ask the Leader of the House some questions, so would she mind not speaking so loudly?

Something else that has to be brought back to the House is the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. I do not know whether the Leader of the House heard the point of order from the Chair of the Exiting the European Union Committee yesterday, but he suggested that the Secretary of State is meeting individuals privately and has not said when he is coming to the Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) has made it absolutely clear that the Committee wants to hear from the Secretary of State before the vote on Tuesday. Will the Leader of the House please ensure that the Brexit Secretary—with or without his other half, the Attorney General—appears before the Committee, particular as one of the Government’s red lines was lost in the House of Lords yesterday?

We know that the Government have paid £33 million to settle a lawsuit. Labour Members have totalled up the amount of money that the Secretary of State for Transport has cost the taxpayer, including in his previous guises, and it amounts to £2.7 billion. Imagine if all that was given to police officers, bringing them back on the beat. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner said that there is “some link” between violent crime on the streets and police numbers. Of course there is—everybody can see that. It does not matter whether the Prime Minister is in Cabinet Office briefing room A, B or C, the fact is that west midlands police and crime commissioner David Jamieson has asked for £964,000 to set up a violence reduction unit. All PCCs should be given funds straight away, before another young person dies this weekend. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) raised a point of order to ask when the Home Secretary or Prime Minister will come to the House to update it on knife crime.

There has been yet another defeat in the courts—yesterday the High Court ruled that the Government’s fracking guidelines were unlawful. Mr Justice Dove said that the consultation was

“flawed in its design and processes”.

May we have a statement on the Government’s policy—well, lack of policy—on fracking, given that High Court judgment?

It may be the 50th anniversary of the Race Relations Act 1968, but the Government’s “hostile environment” policy has caused immeasurable misery for ethnic minorities. A challenge by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants found that the Government’s right to rent scheme is “discriminatory” and in breach of human rights laws, and that evidence “strongly showed” that landlords were discriminating against potential tenants because of their nationality and ethnicity. That, again, is a judgment of the High Court, so may we have a statement on the change in policy following that ruling?

The Public Accounts Committee has published its report on the Windrush generation and the Home Office, and stated that the Home Office has failed to take ownership of the problems it created. The Home Office considered 11,800 Caribbean cases, but failed to renew around 160,000 non-Caribbean Commonwealth cases. When will the Government end their discriminatory polices?

Last week the Leader of the House said that the United Kingdom is doing extremely well, and that we are well prepared for exiting the European Union. I think she needs to correct the record, because the Institute for Government identified eight red areas where the Government will not be able to mitigate fully the major negative impacts of a no-deal scenario in 2019. On Tuesday, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs warned that businesses in Northern Ireland will not be ready for new border procedures if there is no deal. Which is it? The Leader of the House mentioned World Book Day—is she “Alice Through the Looking Glass” or is she going through the cupboard into Narnia?

It is with sadness that we remember Lord Bhattacharyya, founder of the Warwick Manufacturing Group—never has his advice been more important than it is now.

I thank Sir Amyas Morse for all his public service. He said that not enough Ministers “sweat blood” over how they spend public money. That lesson needs to be learned by us all, and particularly the Secretary of State for Transport.

We are celebrating International Women’s Day. It was women’s pay day yesterday, which means that as of today women will start being paid for the work they do—they will not be paid for the work they did in the first 65 days because the current pay gap stands at 17.9%. May we have a statement on how the Government will close that gap? We also celebrate the next generation of young women activists, including Greta Thunberg who started a movement to combat climate change. Our young people are getting ready for their day of action on 15 March. They know that climate change and equality know no boundaries, and that such matters are not about the ego of the few, but that the compassion and co-operation of the many will change the world.

[Mr Speaker]

Just before the Leader of the House responds, I thank her very much, as will other colleagues, for what she said about World Book Day, and I report that my daughter has today gone to school dressed as Pippi Longstocking. I am sure other Members will have examples with which they can regale the House.

[Andrea Leadsom]

That is very reassuring, and not at all surprising, Mr Speaker. I am sure the whole House will celebrate the fact that maths A-level is now one of the most popular subjects for students to take, and the whole country can be proud that more children are getting a serious and good education. Thank you for sharing that, Mr Speaker—I shall not share what my children have gone to school in, as because they have not dressed up. That is mainly because they are 23, 20 and 15—[Laughter.] It would be a little odd! They used to go as things like Peter Pan. It used to be fun. I remember making many a costume, but sadly those days are behind me.

The hon. Lady raised a number of extremely important questions. She asked about next steps. She will appreciate that the Prime Minister’s commitments mean that I have had to announce the business as we know it today. As she appreciates, it is the Government’s intention to seek to win the meaningful vote on Tuesday. Should it be the case that the Government do win it, I would then need to come forward—if I had already announced contingent business, I would have to come forward to change it. What we are expecting, and what the Government are working towards, is winning that meaningful vote on Tuesday. As the hon. Lady will know, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and the Prime Minister herself are very carefully seeking agreement from the European Commission and the EU27 to resolve the outstanding issues on the backstop. It is very important that she understands the reason why the business has been announced as it has.

On recess dates, the hon. Lady will appreciate that for decades, if not longer, Leaders of the House have had to say that recess dates are announced and will then take place subject to the progress of the House. I am sure she appreciates that I will have to make that comment to her again.

On the Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill and the fact that that business did not go forward, as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), said on Monday, it is right that we take the time to look properly at the proposed amendments and consider their impact with the Crown dependencies, which are separate jurisdictions with their own democratically elected Governments. Taking the time to review those amendments was therefore extremely important.

The hon. Lady asks if the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union will appear before the Select Committee. I understand that he has agreed to do so. As she will appreciate, his absolute priority is to seek the support of the European Union for the changes that the UK Government are looking for to the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. He always shows himself willing to appear before this House for scrutiny. He has been absolutely assiduous in his determination to be open to scrutiny at all times.

The hon. Lady asks about the two debates earlier this week, on Eurotunnel and the Standing Order No. 24 debate. She will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the Transport Secretary have both been to the House this week to provide updates on this very important matter. She will know that leaving the EU with a deal remains the Government’s top priority, but it is important that we prepare for all scenarios. The agreement with Eurotunnel secures additional freight capacity and helps to ensure that the NHS has essential medicines in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

The hon. Lady asks about fracking. She will be aware that the Government are determined that, as we move towards a carbon-free future, we will need to continue to rely heavily on gas for some years. Gas is the cleanest carbon fossil fuel and it is essential that we take our gas security seriously. Fracking offers not only a UK-grown source of gas security, but huge opportunities for economic growth in those areas that have it.

On the right to rent, the hon. Lady will be aware that the Government are challenging the judgment. The Government do not agree with the findings and that will continue to be looked at.

Finally, the hon. Lady made a point about the pay gap for women. She will be aware that the Government have brought in mandatory reporting on the pay gap for large employers, with unlimited fines for those who do not comply. The official overall gender pay gap in the UK is 17.9%, which is a record low. There is much more to do, but on the Government side of the House we are committed to reducing and eliminating the gender pay gap.

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

On the hon. Gentleman’s last point, he is really clutching at straws as an SNP Member who has allowed his own Government in Scotland to raise taxes for workers in Scotland. He is guffawing about the question of a car park tax—far more important that he look at the log in his eye over the mainstream taxes on Scottish workers, who now pay more than those in the rest of the United Kingdom.

The hon. Gentleman asks about the next steps for the meaningful vote. He will be aware that the Prime Minister has given three commitments—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I can see that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is in a jovial and jocular mood, but he asked a series of questions. The Leader of the House is answering them, but he seems more interested in having a sort of finger- wagging competition with Conservative Members on the Government Benches. He should do the Leader the courtesy of listening to her replies.

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 21st February 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. May I join in the many tributes to Paul Flynn? He was a brave but kind politician, and we will never forget his sojourn at the Dispatch Box as shadow Leader of the House, which he described as a job creation opportunity for octogenarians.

It is starting to feel distinctly different in here as the Government’s chaotic Brexit starts to play havoc on the UK’s political parties as well as the UK itself. We are all wondering who is next and looking for some willing volunteers on the Conservative Benches—[Interruption.] Oh, there we go; it might be the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning). The smart money certainly is not on the Leader of the House; she is more ERG than TIG. Can we have a debate on political defections, particularly on the question of the point at which defections become a realignment of British politics?

Next Wednesday, we are going to have another one of these “I can’t believe it’s not the meaningful vote” debates as the clock is run down further, and attempts to blackmail the House into accepting this rotten deal or a disastrous no deal continue apace. Once again, there will be another one of these Christmas tree motions. The Government will be told that this House will not accept no deal, and presumably the Government will just ignore the wishes of the House all over again. But at some point this nonsense has to come to an end. The House simply is not going to accept no deal, and the quicker the Leader of the House accepts that, the better we will all be. With 36 days left until we leave the EU, the Government are going to have to come back to the House with their real meaningful vote, so when will that be?

The Leader of the House has actually invented a new date—29 February next week. As the Leader of the House knows, there is no 29 February. Perhaps this is not so much running down the clock, but extending February forever so we actually never get to a meaningful vote.

I do not know what the Leader of the House has got against the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil)—the Refugees (Family Reunion) (No. 2) Bill—but it has been almost a year since it passed its Second Reading in this House. Other Bills have been given precedence and his still has no money resolution. Again, the Government are defying the wishes of the House. When will the Leader of the House set out a motion to let this important Bill progress?

Please let us not do this week all over again. The Leader of the House’s hon. Friends gave up their skiing holidays and trips to their villas for barely-debated statutory instruments and general debates. I have been listening carefully to the Leader of the House, and it seems as if the Easter recess is under threat and is not particularly safe now. We know that this costs the House God knows how much money and has put staff at a great disadvantage, so let us make sure that we have our Easter recess. The only notable thing that happened this week was the desertion of MPs from the two big parties. In the week of the TIGgers, this Government have seemed little more than a bunch of Eeyores in a bad mood.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not want to make the hon. Gentleman envious, but I am pleased to tell the House that I have a fully up-to-date and, dare I say, sanitised version of the business of the House, and mine very clearly says “Friday 1 March”. [Interruption.] Well, I feel very sorry for colleagues. I am obviously in a privileged position and should be thankful for it.

[Andrea Leadsom]

If the hon. Gentleman had only realised, I put that deliberately on his paper in the hope that he might think that, as it would be 29 February, I might propose to him. Just continuing the love, Mr Speaker.

The hon. Gentleman says that I am more ERG than TIG, but he is the one who is desperate for independence, so perhaps he should be the one to go and join the Independent Group. He asks about the debate next week. I have certainly tried to make it clear that the Prime Minister will bring back the meaningful vote just as soon as she feels that she has accommodated the wishes of the House for the legally binding changes to the backstop that will mean that the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement and political declaration can be approved by the House. All Members need to take that incredibly seriously. It is not the Government’s policy to have no deal; it is the Government’s policy to have a good deal that works for the UK and our EU friends and neighbours. Should we agree to and pass the meaningful vote, we will swiftly be able to move to the withdrawal agreement Bill and give certainty to citizens and businesses right across the United Kingdom. It is in all our interests to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I call Drew Hendry.

[Drew Hendry]

I am on a good run, Mr Speaker.

May we have a statement on the responsibility of Government Ministers to respond to Members of this House in a timeous fashion? There has been an increasing pattern of unacceptable delays in responding to constituents’ queries raised by Members of this House. For example, I have been waiting four months for a response from the Department for Work and Pensions, despite having written four letters to two separate Ministers. Does the Leader of the House believe that that is acceptable behaviour from her fellow members of the Government?

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz]

My hon. Friend is doing a lot of chuntering, but I want to wish him well. He had an important day earlier this week, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, also hits a milestone today.

We paid tribute to the Clerk of the House of Commons yesterday, but bizarrely he was not in his place. While he is sitting here, I want to say that he will be missed. I hope he read the important tributes to him.

Finally, Eve Griffith-Okai has been in the Speaker’s Office for 33 years, and we wish her a happy retirement.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the shadow Leader of the House for what she has just said. Many Members from across the House will know Eve Griffith-Okai. I think I am right in saying that she has served under, with and in support of no fewer than four Speakers; she served Speaker Weatherill, Speaker Boothroyd and Speaker Martin, and she has brilliantly served me. She is much loved across the House and has an outstanding track record of public service, which I am glad to say has not gone unnoticed or unappreciated in the Chamber.

[Andrea Leadsom]

As Jane Austen said,

“Is not general incivility the very essence of love?”

I shall therefore take the slightly unhumorous remarks of the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) to be the beginning of a real friendship between us. I am grateful to her for asking some important questions. She asks about Opposition days. I hope she will accept that I have been able to find time for some of the important business that she has requested of me in recent weeks. I was pleased that, as she requested, we were able to debate the Securitisation Regulations 2018 yesterday. I hope that she will also welcome my announcement today that we will have a general debate on the NHS 10-year plan next week, which she requested on 31 January. I am seeking to deliver on requests that she is making. She asks about the probate statutory instrument, and I absolutely heard her request. I ask that she also makes it through the usual channels, as is the convention. The Government will of course respond, as we have done in the past, taking her requests very seriously and delivering on almost all of them.

The hon. Lady asks again about the awarding of contracts by the Department for Transport. She will be aware that we have just had DFT oral questions, where this issue was very much dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He also answered an urgent question earlier in the week on the same subject. Just to be clear—all hon. Members who have been involved in any kind of business procurement will understand this—a process is undertaken that seeks to assess who is suitable for a contract. That does have a cost associated with it, but as my right hon. Friend made very clear, no taxpayers’ money was actually awarded to the supplier involved, because it failed to meet the requirements of the contract.

The hon. Lady asks for a statement on a call for changes to use of the consumer prices index and the retail prices index. I will of course take that away and consider what can be done. She asks when we will bring back a meaningful vote. As the Prime Minister explained to this House just this week in a statement lasting two hours and 18 minutes, in which she answered questions from Members from right across the House, she is currently negotiating a revised deal. Members will be aware that there is a debate all day today on this topic.

The Prime Minister has explained that when we achieve the progress we need, we will bring forward another meaningful vote, but if the Government do not secure a majority in this House in favour of a withdrawal agreement and a political declaration, they will make a statement on Tuesday 26 February, and will table an amendable motion relating to the statement. A Minister will move that motion on Wednesday 27 February, thereby enabling the House to vote on it, and on any amendments to it, on that day.

Obviously, I will make a business statement in the usual way next week, setting out the details of the business for the week commencing 25 February. The hon. Member for Walsall South asks, “Where is the negotiation?”. She will appreciate that there is a negotiation; it is on the final element—resolving the issues associated with the backstop—that the Prime Minister, the Attorney General, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union are firmly committed to achieving in order to bring a motion to this House that it can support, thereby giving certainty to businesses, and citizens across this country and the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I have chatted to our hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who has been pleased to tell me about some of the excellent infrastructure projects that she has campaigned for in her wonderful constituency, including the upgrade of the Toneway at Creech Castle, the upgrade of the A358, the Staplegrove spine road and the upgrade of Taunton rail station, on which work is beginning now. Our hon. Friend is delighted with the efforts that she and others are making to improve Taunton Deane. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) has given you, Mr Speaker, and my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane prior notice of his intention to raise her constituency in this place.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, I am not aware that that is so today, though I speak with care. The Leader of the House is quite right to say that if a Member intends to refer to another Member’s constituency, especially if he or she intends to do so in what might be called disobliging terms, it is a courtesy so to notify. The hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) has, on a number of occasions, notified me of his intention to refer to the Taunton Deane constituency, but—I express myself with care—I am not aware that he did so on this occasion, and that should have happened. [Interruption.] He is signalling that he either has written or will write; I think it is the latter—could do better.

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

The Government have supported the concept of an international fund for Israel-Palestine to promote the values of co-existence, reconciliation and peace. The evidence is robust that these projects bring together people, build resilience and build constituencies for peace. May we have an early debate on how the Government can make progress on the support they have given to this idea so far?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend raises an issue that is of interest to a number of right hon. and hon. Members right across the country, including you, Mr Speaker, and me. Certainly, if my hon. Friend wants to seek a Backbench debate or a Westminster Hall debate, I am sure many on all sides of the argument would want to take part in it.

[Mr Speaker]

I cannot speak for the Backbench Business Committee, but I can assure the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) that if he wants a debate on the matter in Westminster Hall, he will get it all right.

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

Tomorrow, thousands of young people will show their deep concern about the growing climate crisis by taking part in a climate strike. Since, shockingly, there was only one debate on climate change in this place last year, will the Leader of the House urgently find time for us to debate this, the greatest threat we face, so that we can demonstrate to young people that we are listening and that we take their concerns very seriously?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I am keen to accommodate colleagues, but I want to be moving on by midday because the debate on the European Union is heavily subscribed. What is needed is brevity from all colleagues.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

May I start by thanking the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and you, Mr Speaker, for finding time for a debate on serious violence? It proves that business questions work.

On another matter, may we have an urgent debate on provision for families with children who have disabilities? Conservative-controlled Nottinghamshire County Council has just cut £176,000 of funding that, for example, enables children with disabilities to go to nurseries. This cut will affect 46 families, who on average will each lose £4,300. That cannot be acceptable, and I do not believe it conforms to the Government’s own guidelines. We need an urgent debate to protect those children in Nottinghamshire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In reiterating my plea for brevity, I gently point out to colleagues that if they now ask long questions, they do so in the full knowledge that they will be stopping other colleagues taking part.

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary be there for the debate on serious violence?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Ah! The Cornish competitors. Scott Mann.

[Scott Mann]

Will the Leader of the House congratulate the Polzeath marine conservation group on the installation of two water fountains on two of our most prolific beaches in north Cornwall? Given the increased use of reusable bottles, would it be possible to have a debate about the need for more water fountains around the UK?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Can we have single-sentence questions? I call Daniel Zeichner.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

The Government responded positively this week to Professor Abdel-Haq’s report on taxi and private hire licensing. Will the Leader of the House look at reintroducing my private Member’s Bill, which would do exactly what the Government want to do but was chopped by one Member of this House?