Retirement of the Clerk of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I was actually about to say that some of Sir David’s colleagues rather wish his clothing adjustments had extended to the scruffy white bowtie. David’s own bowtie tends towards the off-white shades more commonly favoured by trendy interior designers. I am sure my hon. Friend has a strong opinion on that.

It was a different modernising move that was the high point of David’s career. I am reliably informed that his personal high point was working with the Wright Committee on Reform of the House of Commons 10 years ago. This involved twice weekly extended private discussions—bordering on arguments—with a great number of Members about parliamentary politics and procedure. What more could a senior Clerk ask for?

As well as his official duties in the House, David has represented the Lords and Commons cricket team in their regular matches against the Dutch Parliament and played for parliamentary football and tennis teams. In his spare time, he is an ardent Shakespeare enthusiast, a founder member of the Richard Burbage Society and author of a scholarly essay entitled “The Two Gentlemen of Venice”—we can only speculate who they are. David’s intellectual gifts are part of parliamentary folklore—many a Member, myself included, has asked him a question and then struggled to keep up with the sheer subtlety of his arguments—but he is also blessed with a kindly heart and a vivid sense of humour.

I want to say a personal thank you to David both for his service to the House and for the collegiate way he has worked with me and my office in my time as Leader of the House. After 43 years, he should be proud that he leaves the House in a strong position to face the coming challenges of the next few months and years. In particular, I would like to wish him a very restful retirement. Few deserve it more and I imagine he is very much looking forward to it. I commend this motion to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Leader of the House very warmly for what she has said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you. Both the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader have engagingly captured Sir David’s wisdom, warmth and wit. I too have benefited from all those qualities, and I thank them both for what they have said in leading our debate on this important occasion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

I am sure that is the case, and the hon. Gentleman tees up my next thought perfectly. I have been moved to consider what makes a good Clerk. I am sure that there are many qualities and influences that one must bring to bear, but when I consider those who served as Clerk in my time in this House, I think of Sir William McKay, Sir Malcom Jack, the now Lord Lisvane and Sir David himself, and in the lives of two of them, Sir William McKay and Sir David, there have been strong Presbyterian influences. The shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), referred to Sir David’s membership and regular attendance at the Church of Scotland congregation in Pont Street, and it strikes me that to be a Presbyterian often puts one in a place where one has to be close to the establishment and to authority, and to understand it, but not necessarily be part of it. I do not think it would come as a surprise to any of us in these challenging times to think that anyone holding the office of Clerk of the House of Commons might have cause to have recourse to prayer, and I have mused whether in those moments of prayer in the magnificent surroundings of St Columba’s, Pont Street, Sir David was seeking guidance from the Almighty or offering advice. Fortunately and happily, that is known only to Sir David and the Almighty. I venture the thought that of course offering advice to an omnipotent deity should not be undertaken lightly, as one risks incurring the wrath of God. I am sure if that were ever to be the case, Sir David would be able to meet the wrath of God with the good humour, equanimity and aplomb we would all expect from a man of his knowledge and experience.

I had always thought that Sir David had never offered an opinion with which I could disagree, but ahead of today’s debate, I made the mistake of putting his name into Google, and I found an article on the website of the constitution unit of University College London where he is quoted, I hope correctly, as saying,

“most members of the UK parliament do not come to Westminster expressly to legislate, but to support their parties.”

From that one sentence, it is clear that Sir David’s considerable experience has been gained in the Clerks’ office and never in the Whips Office. Now that perhaps his time might permit it, as Liberal Democrat Chief Whip I would be more than happy to offer him a work experience placement in our Whips Office for him to gain a slightly more rounded experience of how this place works. There is one further interesting sentence in that article:

“Natzler concluded with a suggestion for future research on rebellious opposition backbenchers.”

I am not entirely sure why he restricted that to Opposition Back Benchers, but there is clearly a rich vein of future research and discourse to be had here.

Sir David leaves Parliament with an enormous wealth of knowledge and experience acquired over many years of distinguished service. I hope that last sentence from the UCL website is an indication that this is not an end of his engagement with our Parliament and politics. He has had a long and distinguished service in this House, and I am sure all in this House hope he will have a long and distinguished retirement.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. Not for the first time, he has reminded us that he has served as his party’s Chief Whip, but I hope that he will not take it amiss if I say that he has indeed served as his party’s Chief Whip, and with distinction, but that since then he has been promoted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

As one of the few people who accepts the fact that wigs are no longer commonly worn in this place with a certain sad nostalgia tinged with tristesse, I can forgive Sir David that because of his unfailing decency, kindness and extraordinary characteristics in so many other ways. I first became aware of the depths of his intellect when I was on a plane journey with him going somewhere interesting— probably Belfast. I was whiling away the journey by dipping into the Viz annual and he was reading an old annotated copy of “The Dutch Seaborne Empire”. As he sat there, it was almost as if the air around that noble cerebellum was crackling with the intellectual activity pulsing from that great brain, and I soon came to realise the depth, the breadth and the extent of that extraordinary knowledge.

One evening, the House was wrestling with the very tricky question of the illegal parking of skips on the streets of London, and we turned our minds and our collective consciousness—the intellect of the entire House—to working out how one would actually get rid of an illegally parked skip, and Sir David was sitting in his usual place. The next day, as I walked past his then study, where he was enthroned like the Master of Balliol, he beckoned me inside and said, “This morning at breakfast, my family and I were discussing that question, and there are a few things you should be aware of. Firstly, within the profession, skips are called bins. They are not referred to as skips. To use the expression ‘skips’ immediately identifies you as someone completely unfamiliar with the bulk removal of rubble and refuse. Furthermore, there is a mechanism for the removal of these illegally parked bins, which is well known within the profession. It is a dorsal elevation via lateral lugs.” He drew for me the mechanism, setting out the dynamics of how it could be done, and I thought, “I am in the presence of greatness, because not only is this a man who knows more about the procedure of this House than almost anyone and not only is this a man who has saved the reputations of many a humble parliamentarian by passing them a note—best not repeated on the Floor of the House—but this is a man who understands bulk waste, rubble and refuse removal and was prepared actually to share that with us.”

These occasions are often times of obituary rather than encomiums to those who are still with us. That makes this occasion all the more joyous and all the more joyful, because Sir David is with us and will be with us for many years to come. For however many years he enjoys his time outside and in Dulwich, with all its numerous pleasures that I may one day visit if I am ever allowed, no one in this House has not benefited from his kindness, his decency, his courtesy, his approachability and his wisdom. I cannot imagine anyone capable of doing that job better than he. That is not to put pressure on his successor; I am simply saying that Sir David Natzler is one of a kind. He is the Natzler of Natzlers, the Clerk of Clerks, and I will always be grateful to him.

[Mr Speaker]

We have already heard wonderful tributes from all quarters of the House, and it does seem fitting now to call a great parliamentarian. I call Hilary Benn.

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz]

I am not sure who was eating pizza yesterday at 3.29 pm when the House rose, but I thank the Leader of the House for the business—as I keep saying every week, I think I should thank her, but I am not sure, because there is nothing for the week after, apart from Brexit SIs.

On Wednesday, there will be a general debate, so I am going to ask the Leader of the House if we can have an Opposition day; we certainly deserve one and we could have had one yesterday. But I also want to pay tribute because next Wednesday we are all going to pay tribute to Sir David Natzler, Clerk of the House, and thank him for his 43 years of public service. We welcome the news that our Gracious Sovereign has agreed to the appointment of Dr John Benger as the 51st Clerk of the House. I know that Dr Benger’s commitment and that of all the senior Clerks will continue the good work of Sir David in bringing Parliament into the 21st century.

I agree with the Leader of the House: on 29 January, the Prime Minister said:

“if we have not brought a revised deal back to this House by Wednesday 13 February, we will make a statement and, again, table an amendable motion for debate the next day.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2019; Vol. 653, c. 671.]

The Leader of the House has not quite confirmed this—she could have mentioned it in the business statement. Could she say whether the Prime Minister will be coming back on Wednesday to make a statement? Will this motion be amendable and voteable on?

I am not sure what happens when the Prime Minister is away because they get up to all sorts of Brexit chaos. On zero tariffs, we had the Secretary of State for International Trade saying first that he was going to lay an SI, then he didn’t, then he said he was going to discuss it with the Cabinet, then he decided he wasn’t going to lay the SI, then he suggested it was going to be added to the Trade Bill. This is the Trade Bill that gives powers to Ministers but there is no policy framework set out in that. The Business Secretary said he would not welcome zero tariffs for all industries, so the two Secretaries of State are saying two different things. Can we have clarity? Which Secretary of State is right? The shadow Secretary of State for International Trade said:

“the Secretary of State appears not to understand the basic logic of trade”

negotiations.

“If you have already reduced all your tariffs to zero you have nothing to negotiate with.”

Which Secretary of State is right? Could we have a statement from both, or either, on what exactly the Government policy is?

Mr Speaker, I was here earlier and listened to the urgent question you granted on the SI on mobile roaming. I think there is a change in policy because the SI has been laid and the Government impact assessment says that, unless there is a deal, the UK Government cannot unilaterally guarantee surcharge-free roaming for UK consumers travelling to the EU without exposing UK operators to the risk of being obliged to provide roaming services at a loss. So this Government are listening to the mobile phone operators, not to the consumers. I do not recall seeing that on the side of the bus. This is the important bit because there is a slight change of policy. Given that the SI comes into effect the day after exit day, or the day after it is made, can the Leader of the House ensure that the SI is debated on the Floor of the House, and can she guarantee that, if there is no deal, mobile phone operators cannot instigate charges immediately?

It is Time to Talk Day. Everyone should be able to have a conversation about mental health. A YouGov survey for the Prince’s Trust has found that the number of young people in the UK who say they do not believe that life is worth living has doubled in the last decade. In the first analysis of its kind, a study published in the journal Psychiatry Research found that young people were three to four times more likely to have depression at 18 if they had been exposed to dirtier air at the age of 12. For their sakes, we must act on air quality, which even in Walsall South is over the limit. And may I just ask if the Leader of the House could ask the ministerial cars not to keep their engines running—not to idle while they are waiting for Ministers? This is alarming as 75% of mental health problems begin in childhood or adolescence.

On Monday, we celebrate the International Day of Women and Girls in Science. Both Rosalind Franklin and Jocelyn Bell Burnell made important contributions to science and they were not awarded Nobel prizes, even though they did the work. It is LGBT History Month and those of us who were councillors in 1988 remember section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, under which we could not publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality. That was repealed in 2003. At the same time, members of Sinn Féin had to have their voices dubbed by actors when they were interviewed. We have moved on since then, which is why I agreed with the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, when he said:

“The EU itself is first and foremost a peace project”,

and guaranteed the peace process and the Good Friday agreement. Over the last 21 years, a generation of young people have lived in peace in Ireland. There is a special place in heaven for those who want to promote peace—blessed are the peacemakers.

I do not know whether you know this, Mr Speaker, but there is a space on the Government Benches for the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). He is not in his place because he is at the palace, receiving his knighthood. It is a fantastic story because he started life on a council estate in Woolwich and will now become a knight of the realm. We wish him and his family a very happy day.

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) is unfailingly courteous. He has, in fact, written to me to explain—movingly and manifestly with some regret—his absence from business questions today. He felt that he would have been able to provide the House with a question that was important in terms of substance and beautifully delivered—something that I would not for one moment contradict. We wish him well today, but we hope that he will be back with us next week. I am not sure that we can bear his absence much longer.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I think that everybody would concur; we cannot possibly miss my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for a further week. I also pass to him our very best wishes and congratulations on becoming a knight of the realm. He is a very good fellow in this place, and a very loyal attendee at business questions.

The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) asks about the general debate next week. She will have observed that I announced business on the Securitisation Regulations 2018 next Wednesday. That was a request from the Opposition, so I hope that she is pleased that I have been able to find Government time for that debate in the Chamber.

I also congratulate John Benger on his appointment. I was delighted, along with Mr Speaker and the hon. Lady, to be part of the selection panel. We all agree that he will do an excellent job.

The hon. Lady asks about the next steps on Brexit, particularly whether the motion next week will be amendable and voteable. I do want to help the House on this, so let me be absolutely clear: if a deal is brought back for a meaningful vote, yes, the vote to approve the deal with be a motion under section 13(1)(b) of the EU withdrawal Act, and it will be an amendable motion, as it was in January. If we are not able to bring back the revised deal for that second meaningful vote, the business for Thursday, as I announced earlier, will be a debate on a motion relating to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. The Prime Minister will provide an update to the House next week. If necessary, I will then make a further business statement as a consequence of her statement. As the Prime Minister has said, the motion next week will not be brought back under section 13—there is not a legal requirement to do so—but it is a commitment that the Government have made outside the statutory framework of the EU withdrawal Act. The Government always take seriously the views of this House, and that remains the case on the motion next week, whether it passes with or without amendments. I hope it is clear that, as of now, we will be providing for the House to have a debate next Thursday, whether it is on a meaningful vote or on an amendable, neutral motion.

The hon. Lady asks about the issue of tariffs in a no-deal Brexit. We have just had International Trade questions. I am sure that she will have raised her questions there via Opposition colleagues and received a response. She also mentioned the urgent question on roaming that just took place and has put in a request for that statutory instrument to be debated on the Floor of the House. As always, if she wants to make her request through the usual channels, the Government have been very keen to provide time where there is a reasonable request.

The hon. Lady mentioned the appalling problem of mental health issues among the young, and she is absolutely right to do so, with issues ranging from clean air to excessive use of social media—we have seen only recently the appalling effect that that can have on young people. The Government are committed to doing everything possible to try to resolve the problem of spiralling mental health problems in young people. She specifically asked about ministerial cars’ engines running. Ministerial cars’ engines are not meant to be kept running, and if hon. Members find that they are, then they should challenge that.

The hon. Lady mentioned that the EU is committed to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. I would say to her that the United Kingdom is absolutely committed to strengthening further the bonds between all of the four nations of the United Kingdom, and it is this Government who are determined to do everything possible to maintain the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I thank the Leader of the House both for her opening statement and for her response to the shadow Leader of the House. I think the position is clear, but this is of course very important in relation to Brexit business, and the right hon. Lady has been, I think, most solicitous in trying to attend to the concerns of the House. Last night, I received notice of the draft business for next week, and I noted with dismay that the scheduled debate on an amendable motion had been removed and that we were in fact due to have a debate on Back-Bench business on Thursday the 14th. I confess that I was very alarmed by that. In so far as that has now been reversed, as in the statement that the Leader of the House has announced, and the debate on an amendable motion will take place, I am greatly heartened by that.

I just want to say to the House, because I think it is very important that there is clarity, that I hope the position reflects—I think it does—the commitments made in the Chamber. On 29 January, at column 671, the Prime Minister said:

“Furthermore, if we have not brought a revised deal back to this House by Wednesday 13 February, we will make a statement and, again, table an amendable motion for debate the next day.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2019; Vol. 653, c. 671.]

Two days later, at the business question, the Leader of the House—responding, I believe, to the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan)—reiterated the position by saying:

“We will, of course, have the opportunity to enjoy the Prime Minister coming back for a second meaningful vote as soon as possible. Just to be clear, if we have not brought a revised deal back to this House by Wednesday 13 February, we will make a statement and again table an amendable motion for debate the next day.”—[Official Report, 31 January 2019; Vol. 653, c. 975.]

As recently as yesterday, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), deputising for the Prime Minister, said very specifically:

“She”—

the Prime Minister—

“said that the meaningful vote itself would be brought back as soon as possible, and if it were not possible to bring it back by the 13th, next Wednesday, the Government would then make a statement and table a motion for debate the next day.”—[Official Report, 6 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 322.]

So I think we have the commitment that had previously been made, and I believe that it is the full intention of the Government to honour that commitment. But the dependability of statements made and commitments given, whatever people’s views on the merits of the issues, is absolutely critical if we are to retain or, where lost, to restore trust, so there can of course be no resiling from the commitment which I think is explicit and which has been made: no dubiety, no backsliding, no doubt. I think that is clear.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

It seems clear to me that we are simply not going to be able to get the primary and secondary legislation required through by 29 March. However, could we, as soon as time allows, have a debate on the operation of Home Office rules on TB certification and access to approved testing clinics? A young family in my constituency are facing imminently being torn apart because of entirely illogical and unreasonable application of these rules. Despite my constituent having had an X-ray and obtained a TB certificate, at her expense, at a UK hospital, she has been told that it will not count because it is not an approved centre, but the Home Office is telling her that there are no approved centres within the United Kingdom. To add further illogicality, if she returned to her home country of Canada to reapply, she would not need a TB certificate because it is more than six months since she was in a TB-prone country. I am very grateful to a Home Office team for agreeing to meet me to look at this case in detail. However, I do think that it raises a wider issue about applications and access to TB centres in the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman takes these things so seriously; obviously it is a very serious matter, and if he feels it is appropriate to be determining who is going to hell over it, obviously that is a matter for him. I personally do not find it incredibly amusing. I think it is vital that people treat each other personally with courtesy and respect. I have always said that; I continue to think that. It is just not a laughing matter; it is actually rather hateful.

The hon. Gentleman asked some very important questions, and I think I have just set out precisely what is the case, but I will do so again. I think it is unfortunate, Mr Speaker, that you somewhat muddied the waters by unresponding to the Business of the House statement. I had made it perfectly clear what was the case, and I am perfectly able to do that for myself. I will set it out again for the hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister is currently—[Interruption.] If hon. Members wish to know, they might like to listen. On the other hand, if they want to just yell, that is also fine. The hon. Gentleman asked a question. The Prime Minister is currently negotiating a revised deal, and she will update the House next week—okay? Is that clear? Next week. If necessary, I will make a further business statement, but today’s statement is clear that we will meet our commitment—the Prime Minister’s commitment—to deliver a debate on an amendable motion next week. If the hon. Gentleman listened to the business statement, he will know that that will be on Thursday.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about this week’s business and said that we did not discuss anything. I would just like to point out to him that we had an excellent debate on Monday, when 39 individual Members talked about the importance of sport right across our country in relation to issues such as mental health, reducing obesity and general wellbeing, which are all important matters. On Tuesday, the House debated the police grant and local government finance reports. He may not consider that to be relevant business, but we voted on them and those extremely significant motions have an impact on people in England and right across the United Kingdom. We also discussed some vital subjects in relation to compensation payments for those suffering from mesothelioma and pneumoconiosis. The hon. Gentleman is simply not right to say that we did nothing this week.

The hon. Gentleman is also not right to say that we will be doing nothing during the recess week. He asked again what we will be doing during the period that would have been recess. As I have already said, the business includes some key statutory instruments that are to be debated in the Chamber. He will be aware that Brexit legislation is not a matter only of primary legislation; there are up to 600 pieces of secondary legislation. The House is dealing with those in good order. Over 400 have now been laid, and we remain confident of getting all the statutory instruments that need to be finalised by Brexit day done by then. He should take reassurance from that.

[Mr Speaker]

Colleagues—I address my remarks to colleagues—for the avoidance of doubt, I have not muddied any waters. What I have done is to quote the factual position. Very specifically, I have quoted statements from the Treasury Bench on 29 January, 31 January and 6 February. I know the Leader of the House will be interested in this, because she has just talked about the importance of treating colleagues with respect, which presumably applies to listening to them when they are speaking. The position is extremely clear. I do not try to tell the right hon. Lady how to do her job. I treat her with great courtesy, and I will continue to do so. Nobody is going to tell this Speaker how to stand up for and persistently champion the rights of Parliament. I have done it, I am doing it and I will go on doing it. I could not care less who tries to obstruct me. That is the fact, that is the reality and that is the mission and responsibility of the Speaker of the House of Commons.

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s grave concern, and he is absolutely right to raise the concerns of all right hon. and hon. Members about the appalling spike in knife crime. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was talking about an amendment to the Offensive Weapons Bill that was laid yesterday. He wrote to Opposition Front Benchers, and I have asked him to send a copy of the letter to the hon. Gentleman. All Members will be aware that the matter has been discussed for some considerable time, and the new deterrent in the form of knife crime prevention orders is in effect trying to prevent young people from getting into a life of knife crime.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Leader of the House very much for what she has said, which does at least explain the chronology of events. However, for the avoidance of doubt, let it be clear that it is utterly discourteous to the House of Commons for an important initiative to be announced outside of this Chamber by means of media interviews. The fact of which the right hon. Lady has helpfully informed us—that the Home Secretary wrote to shadow Ministers—is of interest, but in terms of the priority of a statement in the House, it is frankly neither here nor there. The way in which Ministers are held to account is by interrogation in this Chamber. Simply writing a letter to an opposite number and then beetling off to do a radio or television interview will not do. It is simply not up to the required standard.

I say to the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), who is one of the least partisan Members of this House and is naturally collaborative by instinct, that if a Minister does not come to this Chamber to announce a policy when he or she should, there are well-established means by which to ensure the presence of a Minister at the first parliamentary opportunity thereafter. If Members seek such an opportunity, it will be provided. Among other things, we will all be interested to know what possible credible explanation for the conduct can be proffered to the House by a Minister. In the absence of a credible explanation, what of course is required is an unqualified apology.

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

As colleagues around the House know, I am also not enormously party political, and I completely agree with the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) that the House should have been informed.

There is one issue that is bringing this House into disrepute today, and that is the fact that a Member of this House is in prison and continues to be an MP. My constituents and other constituents around the country do not understand how someone can be convicted and go to prison and yet still be a Member of this House. The police officers who protect us here would lose their pensions and lose everything. Something is seriously wrong, so can we have a debate—in the time that it seems we now have—and change the law to ensure that if someone goes to prison, they will not be in this House, so that the public can believe that what we do is right?

Proxy Voting

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to motion 6 on proxy voting, which we will debate together with motion 7. Before I call a Whip to move motion 6, I should inform the House that I have selected amendment (d) to motion 7, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). The amendment will be debated together with the motions. I am referring to amendment (d), appertaining to miscarriages.

At the end of the debate, I shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings. I hope that this is helpful to colleagues. First, I shall put the Question on motion 6, after which I shall call the Leader of the House to move motion 7 formally, and then the hon. Member for Shipley to move his amendment (d) formally and put the Question on that—the Question on amendment (d). Finally, I shall put the Question on motion 7, either as amended or, as the case may be, in its original form on the Order Paper.

I should make it clear that if amendment (d) is agreed to, I shall ensure that the additional requirement relating to miscarriage is incorporated into the pilot scheme and duly authorised as soon as possible. I must emphasise that this would not delay the immediate implementation of the scheme in the form that has been made available in the Vote Office. I call the Leader of the House to move motion 6.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just before I call the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), I should just mention that the shadow Leader of the House referenced Professor Sarah Childs, and I wish to record that the great professor is watching over us.

There will be a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. The right hon. Member for Basingstoke has generously signalled to me that she intends her speech to be shorter than that, but she has up to five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

It is obviously a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who gave a characteristic speech. I recall my suggestion during the urgent question, when I said that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) might be seeking a pair for this evening and I thought the hon. Gentleman might have been up for that, but he is here instead. What I would say is that even a stopped clock is right twice a day, so while I disagree with much of what he said, there are none the less some good suggestions for progress in some of the amendments he has tabled.

I am delighted to be here for this debate, as I am that we are having this debate and that we have this very good news. I again thank the Leader of the House for her dogged work behind the scenes, those from the Procedure Committee and the Women and Equalities Committee, and of course the Mother of the House and everybody who has helped to make this happen, which is so important.

I am particularly happy that, tomorrow, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn will be able to vote by proxy. I think she is probably still awake—she has a small baby, so I reckon she is still awake right now—so I would just say, “Tulip, we are so happy for you. Tomorrow, enjoy little Raphael and making sure your constituents are represented at the same time.” Indeed, I hope that this will go on to be useful for other hon. Members. I know that, with the hon. Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) and for Fareham (Suella Braverman), many more babies are due to be born, and I think this is going to be a really positive step.

One thing I did agree with the hon. Member for Shipley about was the importance of fathers. In the urgent question last week, I was particularly moved by quite how many men stood up and talked about their experiences as dads and MPs, and about the guilt that they feel. I do hope, given that this is a pilot, that that is an issue we can return to as soon as possible. I just think it is not right in the 21st century for us to leave men out of this and say that two weeks is enough; it is not. Dads are incredibly important, which is why we introduced shared parental leave and why we should make sure this applies to men as well.

The hon. Gentleman has tabled an amendment, which seems to command support, about miscarriage, which is also incredibly important. I am fortunate in that I have not experienced miscarriage, but we have heard from hon. Members who have. However, I have had scares involving heavy bleeding. In fact, on one occasion when I was pregnant with Gabriel, I was in the House in the evening, I had just had something to eat and we were due to be voting late on Brexit, and that was when I started to bleed heavily. Anyone who has been pregnant will know how that feels: even though it is not uncommon, the fear strikes that something is going wrong, particularly in the first trimester.

I telephoned my midwife, who advised me to go to accident and emergency, and I went across the bridge to St Thomas’s. It became clear that, by the time I was seen, I was going to miss the vote on Brexit, so I had to contact my Chief Whip and, in doing so, tell him I was pregnant. I had not announced it to anybody yet, so it was not necessarily the circumstances in which I wanted to do that. I was kept in overnight as it happened, and I had a scan and everything was fine—do you know what, I was so delighted that that was the case—and the rest of the pregnancy was good, but that is a not uncommon experience. It is not one where a proxy vote would necessarily made a difference, but I share that because these are the types of experiences that people have when they are pregnant.

I know there will be so many other experiences like that that others have had, which is why a modern workplace ought to be able to accommodate and understand the types of things that people are going through. Of course it did not help that I inevitably received criticism from constituents for not having voted in that Division. I said that I was unwell, but that was not good enough and people still said that I should have been there. If someone has not announced she is pregnant, and in particular if she is worried about having a miscarriage, she really does not want to suddenly tell the world about it.

I hope that we will in future be able to extend this provision to other categories. My right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) has spoken movingly about his first time in Parliament when he was caring for his terminally ill first wife, and others have had similar experiences. In the future, bereavement and other circumstances should be covered, so that this place can be a genuinely modern Parliament.

[Mr Speaker]

It would help if colleagues could shorten their speeches somewhat, but I am guided by colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Bury North, I must emphasise that I want the Leader of the House to have the chance to wind up the debate no later than 11.14 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Bury North (James Frith). What a fantastic way to end our debate: a speech about the importance of dads. Sometimes there is something on which we can all agree, and the importance of dads is one of them.

I share the pleasure of many Members at the fact that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) will—we hope—be able to use the first proxy vote tomorrow. It may be the first time since the 19th century, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) mentioned, but it certainly will not be the last. This is fantastic news for Parliament, and it is something that we can all get behind in our attempts to make ours a modern workplace to which more people from more diverse backgrounds, of different ages and at different stages in their lives, will feel proud to come to represent their constituents.

I hope that all Members will support these motions, and prove that when we really get together we can do great things.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House:—

(1) reaffirms its resolution of 1 February 2018 on baby leave for Members of Parliament;

(2) endorses the Fifth Report of the Procedure Committee, HC 825, on Proxy voting and parental absence;

(3) accordingly directs the Speaker to prepare a pilot scheme governing the operation of proxy voting for Members absent from the House by reason of childbirth or care of an infant or newly adopted child, pursuant to the recommendations in the Committee’s report, this resolution and the temporary Standing Order (Voting by proxy for parental absence);

(4) directs that a scheme prepared in accordance with this resolution and the temporary Standing Order (Voting by proxy for parental absence) shall be signed by the Speaker and the leaders of the three largest parties in the House before it is published, and that it shall enter into effect for a period of 12 months when the Speaker takes the chair on the sitting day after the day of publication;

(5) directs that any amendment of a scheme in effect by virtue of paragraph (4) above shall take effect when the Speaker takes the Chair on the sitting day after a proposal signed by the Speaker and the leaders of the three largest parties in the House is published; and

(6) directs the Procedure Committee to review proxy voting arrangements within 12 months of the commencement of a scheme established by virtue of this order.—(Andrea Leadsom.)

Proxy Voting (Temporary Standing Order)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

Voting by proxy for parental absence (Temporary Standing Order)

(1) A Member may, by reason of absence from the precincts of the House for childbirth or care of an infant or newly adopted child, arrange for their vote to be cast in accordance with this order by another Member acting as a proxy (a proxy vote).

(2) A proxy vote may be cast:

(a) in a division in the House, in Committee of the whole House, or in any legislative grand committee, in relation to the business specified in paragraph (3) below;

(b) on business specified in paragraph (3) below recorded in a division under Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions), and

(c) in a ballot cast in an election under Standing Order No. 1B (Election of Speaker by secret ballot), Standing Order No. 2A (Election of the Deputy Speakers) and Standing Order No. 122B (Election of select committee chairs).

(3) Subject to paragraph (4) below, a proxy vote may be cast on all public and private business of the House.

(4) No proxy vote shall be cast in a division on any motion in the form specified in section 2(2) of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.

(5) No proxy vote shall be reckoned in the numbers participating in a division for the purposes of (a) Standing Order No. 41(1) (Quorum), and (b) Standing Order No. 37 (Majority for closure or for proposal of question).

(6) A proxy vote may be cast only if the Speaker has certified that the Member for whom the vote is to be cast is eligible under the terms of this order and the Resolution of the House of Monday 28 January and if that certificate, including the name of the Member nominated as a proxy, has been published in the Votes and Proceedings.

(7) A vote cast by a proxy shall be clearly indicated as such in the division lists published under the authority of the House.

(8) This Standing Order shall lapse upon the expiry of the proxy voting scheme established under the terms of this order and the Resolution of the House of Monday 28 January.—(Andrea Leadsom.)

Amendment made: (d), after paragraph (7) insert:

“(7A) The Speaker may also make provision for the exercise of a proxy vote for Members who have suffered a miscarriage.”—(Philip Davies.)

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Ordered,

Voting by proxy for parental absence (Temporary Standing Order)

(1) A Member may, by reason of absence from the precincts of the House for childbirth or care of an infant or newly adopted child, arrange for their vote to be cast in accordance with this order by another Member acting as a proxy (a proxy vote).

(2) A proxy vote may be cast:

(a) in a division in the House, in Committee of the whole House, or in any legislative grand committee, in relation to the business specified in paragraph (3) below;

(b) on business specified in paragraph (3) below recorded in a division under Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions), and

(c) in a ballot cast in an election under Standing Order No. 1B (Election of Speaker by secret ballot), Standing Order No. 2A (Election of the Deputy Speakers) and Standing Order No. 122B (Election of select committee chairs).

(3) Subject to paragraph (4) below, a proxy vote may be cast on all public and private business of the House.

(4) No proxy vote shall be cast in a division on any motion in the form specified in section 2(2) of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.

(5) No proxy vote shall be reckoned in the numbers participating in a division for the purposes of (a) Standing Order No. 41(1) (Quorum), and (b) Standing Order No. 37 (Majority for closure or for proposal of question).

(6) A proxy vote may be cast only if the Speaker has certified that the Member for whom the vote is to be cast is eligible under the terms of this order and the Resolution of the House of Monday 28 January and if that certificate, including the name of the Member nominated as a proxy, has been published in the Votes and Proceedings.

(7) A vote cast by a proxy shall be clearly indicated as such in the division lists published under the authority of the House.

(7A) The Speaker may also make provision for the exercise of a proxy vote for Members who have suffered a miscarriage.

(8) This Standing Order shall lapse upon the expiry of the proxy voting scheme established under the terms of this order and the Resolution of the House of Monday 28 January.

[Mr Speaker]

The Leader of the House signalled this, but for the avoidance of doubt and the sake of clarity, following the decision of the House on motions 6 and 7, as amended, I wish to make a brief statement.

As has already been alluded to during the debate, the pilot scheme that I am directed to prepare has been signed by myself, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the parliamentary leader of the Scottish National party. The scheme, colleagues, will be published this evening and will therefore indeed have effect from tomorrow.

I also confirm that I expect my first certificate of eligibility to be published in the Votes and Proceedings for today, enabling a proxy vote to be cast tomorrow.

Proxy Voting

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this urgent question. I thank the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) for her question. I have great respect for her, particularly for her invaluable work on the steering group to establish the Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy. She has also been a strong voice on the issue of proxy voting and I know that many of us enjoyed seeing her in her place during the previous debate on this matter with baby Gabriel.

I am also delighted that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) welcomed a new baby boy, Raphael, on Thursday. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in sending our very best wishes. There are a number of Members right across the House who are expecting babies in the coming months and so I know that this matter is, quite rightly, of huge importance to many.

I profoundly believe that all new parents should be able to spend uninterrupted time with their new baby. That is vital both for the physical and mental wellbeing of parents and their babies. Working to give every baby the best start in life has been a passion of mine for many years, and during this time I have had the pleasure of working closely with many hon. and right hon. Members across the House.

I was delighted that the Prime Minister asked me to chair a cross-Government ministerial group in June to explore what more the Government can do to improve the cradle-to-grave effects that result from better support in this critical period of our lives. The group that I chair will make recommendations to relevant Secretaries of State on how the Government can improve the co-ordination and cost-effectiveness of early years family support, and identify gaps in available provision. I am delighted to be visiting Home Start and Sure Start in Manchester this Friday with the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) to hear directly from parents about their experiences.

I assure the House that I am absolutely committed to making progress on the issue of proxy voting, and I am truly delighted to be able to confirm to the House today that a substantive motion on proxy leave in the case of maternity, paternity and adoption has been tabled today for the House’s agreement on Monday 28 January.

The motion I have tabled will largely follow the helpful recommendations set out in the Procedure Committee’s fifth report of the Session. It will facilitate baby leave for Members of Parliament and implement the House’s decision to agree to proxy voting in instances of baby leave.

The motion and Standing Order changes that I will table deviate in two minor ways from the drafting in the Procedure Committee report. First, the motion will provide for a pilot scheme of one year, with a formal review at the end of that by the Procedure Committee to ensure that it is working well. Secondly, for that reason, the Standing Order is temporary, and in agreement with the Clerks, the ability to make provision for proxy voting in so far as not provided for by the Standing Order was deemed unnecessary for the scheme to be fully workable. Those are the two minor changes.

This is a perfect example of how Parliament can work collaboratively to bring about important change, demonstrating the work of many colleagues from all parties, who have been determined to see this happen. This is a really positive moment for many colleagues across the House. There have been a number of constructive debates about this issue, and ultimately it is clear to me that the balance of opinion is that baby leave is a unique period of time and is crucial for new parents. This is a step forward, removing the choice between parliamentary and parental responsibilities and helping to make Parliament a more modern workplace.

I do hope that the House will be of the same opinion, and that it will fully support the motion next week to bring forward a pilot scheme for proxy voting.

[Mr Speaker]

Splendid.

[Jo Swinson]

First, I absolutely share in the congratulations that the Leader of the House is sending—I am sure from the whole House—to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on the birth of her gorgeous baby boy, Raphael.

I thought that things were pretty bad when, back in June in the heat wave, I was 10 days past my due date, but the Government’s response to the House’s instruction to introduce proxy voting gives a whole new meaning to the word overdue. In all seriousness, I congratulate the Leader of the House on her work and on getting to this stage; she is a genuine advocate. Those of us who have worked hard on this issue—the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and those of us who have recently been pregnant or are currently pregnant—know from our meetings with the Leader of the House that she has been seriously helping to drive this initiative within Government, I am sure to her frustration at times, because she is committed to this issue. However, it is shameful that last week the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn was put in the invidious position of having to make a choice—weighing up the potential health risks to her baby against whether her constituents could have their voice heard on the biggest issue of our time. Nobody should be put in such a position.

I would also say, for the record, that I think that it is disgusting that some have suggested that the hon. Lady was just trying to make a point. She was put in an impossible position and she made a choice. The judgment that comes from all corners of parents making choices like that, and all sorts of others, is out of order. We should respect the choice that she made.

Yes, the hon. Lady was offered a pair—that is what some people have said: “She was offered a pair.” but it is the Government’s fault that pairing is entirely discredited as a mechanism to enable pregnant MPs and new parents to discharge their responsibilities. I was nursing my two-week-old baby in July when I found out that the person I was paired with had voted anyway. He had not voted all day; he had voted in just the two Divisions that happened to be very close—one that the Government lost and one that they won. So forgive me if I am a bit sceptical about the assurances that we were given that that was a genuine mistake, because the result of the Chief Whip’s behaviour—as it then turned out, others had been asked to break their pairs too—was to cheat my constituents out of their voice on one of the biggest issues of our time: Brexit. So some Members of the Government—not the Leader of the House—have been dragged kicking and screaming to this position.

I also think we should put on record thanks to Esther Webber of The Times, whose article suggesting that it was the Chief Whip who was blocking this issue is, I suspect, not entirely unrelated to the date at which this announcement has been brought forward today, in response to this urgent question.

However, I ask the Leader of the House, why the delay? It has been nearly a year—five babies born; three more on the way. Does she appreciate the appalling message that that sends out about maternity rights? Fifty-four thousand women a year lose their jobs because of pregnancy and maternity discrimination, and the Government’s response has been completely inadequate. The charade that we have seen in this House just underlines that message.

The baby son of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn is five days old. We in law do not allow new mothers to work for two weeks after their baby is born, which is why I am delighted that the Leader of the House says that the House will discuss this issue on Monday. May I ask her some practical questions? Will the motion have time allocated to it, so that it is not possible for a single voice to shout “Object!” and stop the debate happening? What discussions has she had with the Speaker’s Office to make sure that all the preparatory work is done, and that a scheme is in place, so that if the House approves the motion on Monday, the scheme can be in place on Tuesday?

Of course, that does not get round the issue of the voice of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn being heard on Monday for that vote. Perhaps the Leader of the House might like to suggest a pair for the hon. Lady on Monday evening—I do not know what the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is doing then, but somebody like him may well appreciate having the night off.

We have waited long enough for this change. Modernising the House of Commons is a slow and laborious process—frankly, it is often quite like childbirth—so let us get on with it. I hope that on Monday night I will walk through the Lobby with the Mother of the House, the Leader of the House and many modernising MPs from all parties to get this done.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I say again that I consider the hon. Lady to be a friend and I entirely understand her frustration. I will respond to her questions in turn.

First, the hon. Lady talks about the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq). As I said in business questions last Thursday, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn was offered a pair. She has also received an invitation to be nodded through should she wish her vote to be recorded. That would obviously require her to come to this place at some point during the day before the vote, when her name would be recorded; but in the meantime, she is invited to have a pair. I understand that she had a pair yesterday.

As the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) knows, until proxy voting is in place, that remains the way in which those with illnesses and those having parental leave are accommodated. She will also be aware, as was said at the time, that the breaking of the pair in her case on, I believe, 17 July was done entirely in error. My right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) apologised directly to her, as did my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip on behalf of the Whips Office. I apologise to the House again, but I can assure all Members that it is intended that a pair be provided for the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn should she wish it, as was the case yesterday.

The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire asks about the delay. She will appreciate that this is a fundamental break with the past in this House. She will also appreciate that I wrote to the Procedure Committee in November 2017, asking it to look into this matter, because it was a significant change for the House, and the Committee raised a number of issues that needed resolution. For example, when should a proxy be used? Could it be just for Government business? Should it be for private business? Should it be for a closure motion? Should it be for life-or-death decisions only? Those were very important questions. Also, who should offer the proxy? Who should be the proxy? Who should provide that role, and what sort of consequences does that offer for the individual who may be voting against their conscience on behalf of another Member? Finally, there is the question of whether proxy should be used only for those on baby leave rather than for those who are ill or who have other priorities.

Those were significant questions and I understand the hon. Lady’s frustration at the time it is taking, but we have had a number of very constructive debates, and I believe that we have concluded that the issue of baby leave is unique, and therefore should have priority. That is why I am able to bring this forward today.

Finally, with the breaking of pairs, I totally understand that in the hon. Lady’s case that was extremely regrettable, but she will appreciate that, as an informal system, there are a number of problems with the administration of pairs. I would very gently point out to her that five Liberal Democrat MPs—almost half of the party’s MPs—have broken their pairs in this Parliament alone. It is not unique to the Government side; a number of pairs have been broken through genuine errors. All hon. Members need to consider the fact that there is a strong commitment to making the informal pairing arrangement work as well as it possibly can.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Leader of the House for what she has said. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) also asked what discussions the Leader of the House had had with my office, to which the answer is that the Leader of the House and I have discussed this matter from time to time. I have made extremely clear privately, as I have made extremely clear publicly, my desire for progressive change and my impatience with its absence. More particularly, what I would like to say to the hon. Lady and for the benefit of the House is this: I can assure colleagues that if and when the House agrees to the necessary resolution and Standing Order, I will ensure that I have a scheme ready to be activated, so that Members can rapidly—indeed, I think instantly—apply for a proxy vote, and their nominated proxy can then cast that vote the next day. I think colleagues will agree that that is crystal clear.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House not only for her statement but for her personal commitment to supporting, in particular, pregnant and new mothers—and new fathers—in Parliament. I fully support what she has outlined today. She talked about modernising the workplace. Proxy voting is only one aspect of modernising this, frankly, prehistoric workplace in Parliament. So many aspects of Parliament need modernisation, and change, as this issue has shown, is far too slow and fragmented. Where does responsibility for driving forward that change lie? I know that it does not lie with the Government.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her comment and question. I completely agree with her. Many of us—if not all of us—across this House want Parliament to be a more family-friendly place. There have been a huge number of efforts, including by you, Mr Speaker, and by right hon. and hon. Members across the House to change the sitting hours to make them more family-friendly, for example. There are now better childcare facilities on the estate. There is a greater use of technology to make it easier to go about our jobs. We have done a huge amount of work, with cross-party collaboration, to bring in a new behaviour code and a new complaints procedure to make people feel that they can be treated with the dignity and respect that everybody deserves in this place. There is a huge amount more to do. I am committed to working with colleagues to make more progress. My right hon. Friend and I met only yesterday to talk about what more we can do, cross-party, to try to ensure that we have a more family-friendly Parliament that encourages people from all walks of life to want to come here and take up a role representing their constituents.

[Mr Speaker]

The responsibility is shared, but on a point of fact, as I suspect the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) knows, responsibility on this matter was manifestly and incontrovertibly that of the Government, as the Procedure Committee recognised. That responsibility has been discharged today by the Leader of the House, and I thank her for it. It is very important that we proceed on the basis of factual knowledge and not of misguided perception.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I thank the Leader of the House for her response and congratulate the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) on securing this urgent question. I think Andrew is the only one of her family not to be in the Chamber. Thank you for granting the urgent question, Mr Speaker, because it has allowed us to get some further information.

It seems that it is not only the Prime Minister who returns frequently to this House and tells us that nothing has changed. It must be catching, as we have been promised yet a further debate. This is the second urgent question on proxy voting for baby leave in the space of six months, the last being on 18 July 2018 in the wake of the shameful events when a pair was deliberately broken by a Government Minister. The Leader of the House honoured her promise of a debate on 13 September. We have had two debates, and yet no further progress, despite there being broad agreement, and the will of the House being known, on the principle of proxy voting for baby leave. This House is debating and voting on one of the most significant issues that this country has faced, and yet last week a Member who was heavily pregnant, but who wanted her vote counted and recorded to fulfil her duties to her constituents, had no other option but to come to the House. It is time that we ensured that this is a modern workplace with modern employment practices for those with baby leave.

I know that the Leader of the House wants urgently to find a way forward and is not the block in the Government to these reforms. Today we hear about the Prime Minister of New Zealand—she knows that there is a work-life balance, even in that position. Everyone can find a way. Both Australia and New Zealand have a system, so there is absolutely no reason why we cannot look at those precedents and come up with our own solution.

I welcome the fact that the Leader of the House has announced not just a motion but a debate. Will it be on a voteable motion? Will there be time for amendments? For how long will the debate take place? Why, given the paucity of the Government’s parliamentary agenda, can the Leader of the House not secure sufficient Government time? She has not actually said how long the debate will be and whether it is on a voteable motion. Will she say, in response to the question by the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire and to mine, whether we can vote and whether this principle will be secured by a vote on Monday?



As I set out from the Dispatch Box on 18 July and 13 September, Her Majesty’s Opposition—the Labour party—support the principle of proxy voting for baby leave. As I have repeatedly set out, there is a way that baby leave can be introduced today, without the need for a debate, through public agreement by all the parties to nod through those on baby leave for every Division. As I mentioned in a previous debate, there is a way that we could ensure that those voting by this means are denoted with a star. I even offered the idea of a baby emoji—I am sure that someone will come up with that. That will give full transparency to the public as to how Members have voted.

On 13 September, I asked about the evidence that the Leader of the House was going to take. She said that she wanted to take evidence on unintended consequences and various other issues. Has she taken this evidence? When will she report back to the House on it? Could she share that evidence with the House, and at least with the Chair of the Procedure Committee, who is in his place? As I offered on 18 July, will she agree to meet me today to discuss this?

It is vital that we are a modern workplace—that those on baby leave can have their vote recorded and take part in our proceedings as they are elected to do. I appreciate that the Government are putting forward the motion, but it does not guarantee any time for us to debate or give Members a vote to decide on this matter once and for all. Will the Leader of the House please be clear on that? We need to make this Parliament the modern, progressive and equal Parliament that we all want to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, I am certainly celebrating the House’s achievement, just as I am celebrating seeing you break into a smile at the same time as the Leader of the House—it was like a parting of the clouds. You should try to do it more often; you work quite well together.

I thank the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House for closely involving the Procedure Committee in their work. This is good news. As Chairman of the Procedure Committee, I would particularly like to thank the Committee’s members for bringing forward a really good report that seems to have the House’s support.

[Mr Speaker]

I want to say—I do not think this is a divisible proposition—that the hon. Gentleman is an all-round wonderful human being.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I find myself entirely agreeing with you on that point, Mr Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for the excellent and timely work of the Procedure Committee, which has provided a way forward on which I sincerely hope the House will agree on Monday.

[Mr Speaker]

Colleagues, there is a piquancy about the fact that, as we have been debating this important matter, a large number of children and young people have been observing our proceedings. Until a matter of moments ago, to boot, there was a young man up in the Gallery clutching a little baby—[Interruption.] Apparently, it was the baby of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith)—[Interruption.] Ah, on cue! We are grateful to him.

Those watching our proceedings will be pleased to know that the next Member to be called is the person who has done more to champion women and equality in this House than anyone any of us can recall: the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the Mother of the House, elected on 28 October 1982 and still in service here.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

Thank you for your kind words, Mr Speaker, but this has been a collective endeavour. First, I would like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who has been a champion of this for pressing reasons and reasons of principle. I thank her for securing this urgent question, and thank you for granting it, Mr Speaker. You have always been on the side of progress in respect of parents. As the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) said, you were a champion of the crèche here, and she explained why this measure is so necessary.

We must also thank the Procedure Committee and its Chair. As soon as the House passed the motion, the Committee cracked on with it and did a thorough and excellent job. Who knew how exciting the Procedure Committee was? I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller). This is me railing ineffectively, but she had the idea that we should go to the Backbench Business Committee, to enable the Chamber to debate it. I thank the Committee for its role.

It is 31 years too late for me, but I am delighted about this, because it is really important. There are many babies of Members on both sides of the House in the offing. They are blissfully unaware of the Brexit debate, but these Brexit babies cannot wait, so I am delighted that we are getting on with it.

Finally, I pay tribute to the Leader of the House, who I am in no doubt has always been on the right side of the argument. I point out that I, too, was Leader of the House, and I failed to get this through. Whoever succeeds in these long decades of progress and these baby steps into the 21st century, all power to your elbow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I do not wish to promote sibling rivalry, so I call Rachel Reeves.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I am the older sister, yet I have been called second today—we will be having words later, Mr Speaker.

I too thank the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) for asking this urgent question, and the Leader of the House for answering it. May I just check the procedure for Monday? Is the intention to table a motion that we can vote on, or will it be introduced at the end of the day, in which case there is a risk that one Member will shout “Object” and stop the proposal going through? I know that the Leader of the House is trying to do the right thing, but we are all keen to ensure that we have proxy voting in place by the end of Monday.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Having had three kids, I have discovered a very useful piece of information, which I wish now to share with the hon. Lady: the oldest child makes the rules, the second child is the reason the rules are needed, and to the third child the rules do not apply. She is absolutely right to raise this issue. We have debated proxy voting a number of times and want to get on with it, so the plan is to bring it forward for the House to nod through. She is therefore quite right that if somebody objects, I will need to look at further measures, which I will do in very short order. This is the quickest way to get it through. Following that, as you have said, Mr Speaker, you will ensure that the detailed procedures are ready immediately thereafter. That will then need to be signed off by you, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Scottish National party’s Westminster team. Once those signatures have been received, it will be possible for proxy voting to take place on the next sitting day.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Leader of the House for that useful clarification. For the avoidance of doubt, if it is necessary for me to trog around the offices of the individual party leaders in order to secure those signatures, I shall be happy to do so.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Trog?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Well, toddle then.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

I wish you well in your toddling endeavours, Mr Speaker, although I hope that is not necessary. I associate myself with everything the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) said and welcome the excellent announcement by the Leader of the House. I declare an interest, as my wife and I are expecting our first child in just over six weeks’ time, so I might be making an early application. With regard to the one-year trial, how will that work ahead of a birth? I am keen to take advantage of proxy voting post birth, but for those of us who represent constituencies far from London—if I am in the Chamber after 5 pm, I cannot physically get back to Moray until about noon the following day—will there be an opportunity not only to share the first few days of their child’s life, but to be there for the birth?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman may know that one of my hon. Friends spoke in one of our earlier debates on proxy voting about timing the birth of her baby in the summer recess. The baby was conceived to be born in the summer recess—fine-tuning the event specifically so that she would not have the problems we have discussed. I absolutely understand the challenges that new families in this place face. The hon. Gentleman asked what will be available to new fathers. It will be proxy voting for the two-week parental leave available to fathers—that is what is proposed for the pilot scheme. For mothers, it will be six months of proxy voting, again in line with the Procedure Committee’s proposals.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank all colleagues and reiterate my thanks to the Leader of the House for her work and commitment, which are apparent to everyone. We are not quite there yet, but we are closer than we were, and we hope that the matter will be resolved on Monday. Let me be the first to say thank you to her from this Chair for what she has done.

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2019 Commons Chamber

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

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 21 January—Remaining stages of the Healthcare (International) Arrangements Bill.

Tuesday 22 January—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill.

Wednesday 23 January—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Tenant Fees Bill, followed by a motion relating to private Members’ Bills.

Thursday 24 January—A general debate on Holocaust Memorial Day 2019, followed by a debate on a motion relating to appropriate ME treatment. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 25 January—The House will not be sitting.

I can confirm to the House that a statement and a motion on the Government’s next steps under section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 will be tabled on Monday. A full day’s debate on the motion will take place on Tuesday 29 January, subject to the agreement of the House.

Mr Speaker,

“Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift. That’s why we call it the present.”

Let me say, on the eve of A.A. Milne’s birthday, that that is one of my favourite quotes from “Winnie-the-Pooh”—and, as Eeyore said:

“It never hurts to keep looking for sunshine.”

May I wish you, Mr Speaker, a very happy birthday for Saturday?

Finally, I leave the House with an uplifting and rather wise thought from “Winnie-the-Pooh”:

“If the person you are talking to doesn’t appear to be listening, be patient. It may simply be that he has a small piece of fluff in his ear.”

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Leader of the House for her birthday wishes. I am looking forward to the occasion, although probably not quite as much as when I was about to be 15 rather than 56—but there you go.

[Valerie Vaz]

May I associate myself with the Leader of the House’s good wishes to you, Mr Speaker? I am not quite sure about the bit about the fluff in the ear. I do not know whether she suspects that you are not listening to what she says.

I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for next week. I am pleased that she said that the Prime Minister would make a statement on Monday. The Prime Minister said that the motion would be amendable. Can the Leader of the House confirm that it will be, and can she also confirm what the Government Chief Whip said when he jumped up to the Dispatch Box—he said that 90 minutes was not enough to debate such an important issue and that the Government would provide reasonable time to hold the debate and vote by 30 January?

This is the first Government to be held in contempt of Parliament. The Prime Minister has had a vote of no confidence from within her own party. There was a vote of no confidence in the Government yesterday, which the Government won because they have a confidence and supply agreement. Yet again, however, a record was broken: 432 hon. and right hon. Members voted against the Prime Minister’s deal. That was the biggest defeat of a Government in history.

The Leader of the House said in an interview on BBC Radio 4:

“The Government has been collaborating across the House ever since the beginning of this Parliament.”

Can she say with whom? The Leader of the House also said that the Prime Minister will be “speaking with senior parliamentarians”. Can she say with whom—can she publish a list of those favoured ones, or is this another case of divide and rule? The Leader of the House will note that the House voted against a no-deal scenario. That must be off the table, so could she confirm that that is off the table in any starting point for discussions?

This Opposition and Parliament have been working on behalf of the people. Pressure from Her Majesty’s Opposition led to a meaningful vote, a term coined by the shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), and it took a Humble Address for Parliament to be given the impact assessments.

How can we have confidence in the referendum when the donor of the largest political donation in history is being investigated by the National Crime Agency? The leave campaign has been found to have broken electoral law, whistleblowers and journalists have raised alarms about the legality of the campaign, and the previous Government said no analysis of the impact should be given out by our independent civil service.

Yes, the people have voted, but it is our job as elected representatives to look at the evidence of the impact on the country, and not rely on the campaign rhetoric, which we now know to be based on falsehoods. We must rely on the evidence and the facts. So can the Leader of the House confirm whether she will move the business motion to extend article 50 in time? I know friends of the Leader of the House have said she might resign if she had to do that.

The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) has asked the DExEU Minister to explain why the Government thought it appropriate as a matter of law to proceed under regulation 32, for reasons of urgency, extreme urgency and unforeseeable events, when they handed the contract of £14 million to Seaborne Freight, a company with no ships, no ports and no employees. Can the Leader of the House publish a list of all the contracts that have been awarded under this regulation by any Government Department?

As of last Friday, 73% of the time available for the Government to lay their Brexit statutory instruments has elapsed, but only 51% of SIs have been laid. A previous shadow Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Lord Cunningham, said in the House of Lords that there is a Brexit SI that is 630 pages long, 2.54 kg in weight and includes 11 disparate subjects. The Government are clearly doing all they can to avoid proper scrutiny. Baroness Smith, shadow Leader of the Lords, says that she holds both of them in both hands so she does not have to go to the gym. Can the Leader of the House update the House on the progress of the Brexit SIs that need to be laid before the UK exits the EU?

In yesterday’s confidence vote debate the Prime Minister said:

“when you have worked hard all your life, you will get a good pension and security and dignity in your old age”.

Not if you are a WASPI woman, and not if you are a couple where only one of you is over pensionable age, because a written statement on Monday showed that there would be a £7,000 pension cut for the poorest elderly couples. The Prime Minister said:

“where growing up you will get the best possible education, not because your parents can afford to pay for it but because that is what every local school provides”.

Not according to new analysis by the House of Commons Library, showing that total education spending, including spending on schools and colleges, in the UK has fallen by over £7 billion in real terms since 2010. The Prime Minister said:

“where, when you have children of your own, you will be able to rely on our world-class NHS”.—[Official Report, 16 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 1185.]

But not if you are on NHS waiting lists, which have grown to 4.3 million. The number of people waiting longer than two months for cancer treatment has almost doubled since 2010 and £7 billion has been cut from adult social care since 2010, leaving 1.4 million elderly and vulnerable people without care and support. The Prime Minister needs to come to the House and correct the record. It is no wonder that, in his speech, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs focused on the Leader of the Opposition rather than on confidence in his own Government.

May I also ask the Leader of the House if she will in principle talk to the usual channels about proxy voting? I do not want to discuss individual cases, just the principle of proxy voting. What is the timetable for coming back to the House and ensuring that is put in place?

The Leader of the House mentioned the Holocaust Memorial Day debate. The book will be available to sign next week; it was opened this week. On Monday, it is Martin Luther King Day, whose words we must remember:

“We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all”.

I hope that we all heed those words as we work towards tolerance, mutual respect, justice and opportunity and as we work to find a solution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. The present law excludes local council employees who hold a politically restricted post, as defined in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, from standing in both parliamentary and local authority elections. He may like to raise the matter with Cabinet Office Ministers, perhaps in an Adjournment debate, so that he can seek further information.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Pete Wishart.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and may I wish you a happy birthday for Saturday from everyone on the SNP Benches? Perhaps you can get a game of tennis in if you get the chance. I also thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week.

Well, we are all still here! I congratulate the Leader of the House and her Government on winning the no-confidence vote last night. At least they can still win one vote, and the nation is grateful—or perhaps not. Amazingly, this is a Government who treat the biggest defeat in parliamentary history as a mere flesh wound. Like Monty Python’s Black Knight, they fight on, armless and legless, prepared to bite the nation into submission. With similar delusion, they fight on as though nothing has happened. The red lines remain in place, there is no sense that other options are being considered seriously, and the Government still believe that a little bit of tinkering around the edges of their deal will be enough to make everything all right. The Government need to start to get real about their position and demonstrate that they are prepared to take Tuesday’s defeat seriously. May we have a statement, to show good will towards the House, to say that the Government will stop the clock and ensure that no deal is taken off the table? That would be the best way to engage with the other parties in this House.

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for clarifying the situation around the Prime Minister’s statement on Monday and the debate a week on Tuesday. However, the business statement did not cover the fact that, according to the amended business motion approved by the House relating to the meaningful vote, the Government have three days to bring forward that debate, so why is the debate coming seven days after the statement? Next week’s business is important, but the debate could be held next week. The clock is ticking, and we do not need to wait until Tuesday week. The Leader of the House did not quite confirm this to the shadow Leader of the House, so will she ensure that any motion is fully debatable and amendable and that all options will be considered?

Lastly, this has been raised previously, but we need to review the House’s appalling voting arrangements. Tuesday night was awful, with cramped conditions no better than a cattle wagon while Members of Parliament vote. What will have to happen before we decide to do something? Does somebody have to give birth in a Lobby before the matter is tackled seriously? This is the 21st century, and our voting arrangements should match the times in which we live. Get shot of these ridiculous voting arrangements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)]

I should like to declare an interest. Some years ago, when we were in a minority Government, I was in our Whips Office. Since then, for some five years, I was either shadow Leader of the House or Leader of the House. I feel an old-fashioned sense of unease when I hear people exploring options that might lead to the Government reducing or losing their control of the business of the House. However, that is of course entirely unnecessary. It is within the remit of the Government, using their access to the Order Paper, to facilitate exploration of where the will of the House lies. I strongly urge the Leader of the House to consider and explore, in consultation with colleagues, ways in which the Government might do that in order to facilitate the House’s expression of its wishes—the Prime Minister says she wants it to come to a decision—rather than, as has perhaps inadvertently happened in the past, almost obstructing the expression of the will of the House.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. When the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) served as Leader of the House, she was such a good Leader of the House and so popular and respected on both sides that I recall from 20 years ago that when we feared from press reports that her role as Leader of the House was at risk, the right hon. Members for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and for Buckingham (John Bercow) all sprang to our feet during business questions to insist that she must remain in her place.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) for her suggestion. She will equally appreciate that when, under her Government, indicative voting was attempted on House of Lords reform, it did not come up with a clear solution—that is the other side of the argument. Nevertheless, I am grateful for her remarks and suggestions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

May I say that I have the greatest regard for the hon. Lady? She raises very important issues in this place and she is right to do so. She is raising the issue of one of our colleagues who chose to come to the House to vote. The usual channels will all confirm, and indeed the Speaker confirmed yesterday, that a pair was offered. That is the normal arrangement for somebody who cannot be present. It was offered well in advance and that offer remains open to her. I myself am extremely concerned about the hon. Lady’s welfare and wish her all health and happiness with her new baby. I do personally wish that she would follow the advice of her doctors. I genuinely do not believe that any of her constituents would possibly require her to turn up here in a wheelchair when it was perfectly possible to have received what is the normal arrangement in this place for people with conditions—and there were others, with long-term health conditions, who were paired on that same day. I really do wish that she would accept that offer.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question and the Leader of the House for what she has said. Of course, as we discovered last summer, it is possible for the credibility of the pairing system to be damaged, perhaps irreparably, when it is abused or dishonoured. Moreover, as hon. and right hon. Members are aware, the House has twice debated the matter of proxy voting in circumstances of baby leave, and on both occasions the will of the House in support of such a system was made clear. Therefore, it is imperative, following those two debates in February and September of last year, that effect is given to the will of the House. It would of course be intolerable—literally intolerable—if, for example, a Whips Office, because of its own opposition to such a change, were to frustrate the will of the House. That simply cannot happen, and I very much doubt that Members will be tolerant of it for any length of time. The House has spoken and change must happen. It is a lamentable failure of leadership thus far that it has not done so.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I do not mean to labour the point, Mr Speaker, but I think it utterly incredible that in our employment as Members of Parliament we are treated differently from anybody else across the UK or beyond. There is no other job anywhere where someone would be asked to, and put in the position where they have to, choose to come to work the day before they give birth or to delay the birth of their child. I am sorry, but I am fed up with hearing excuses from the Leader of the House and ridiculous arguments about not putting in place proxy voting, baby leave, and, frankly, electronic voting. We only need to look to Wales and Scotland, where we have Parliaments that have seats for every Member and electronic voting. For goodness’ sake, this is the 21st century—what are this Government doing? It is about time they sorted this out so that we can enjoy a proper status and be able to consider having children. I do not have any children but I may consider having some at some point, and I do not know how that would be manageable in the current circumstance.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments, and I am listening very carefully. She will appreciate that what happens in this place is a matter for Members. A number of Members have raised with me the need for those with long-term illnesses, family emergencies and so on to be accommodated, but I have heard from other Members that that would not command the support of the House. I am seeking to provide a solution that can command the support of the House.

The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) was able to be nodded through. If it was a matter of having her vote recorded—[Interruption.] Members are shaking their heads. The usual channels agreed that she could come to this place at any moment on that day and be nodded through, to have her vote recorded. On this occasion, until we have finalised the way forward, that is my strong recommendation. I hope that the hon. Lady will take medical advice and not come into the House unnecessarily.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) has had to raise this and that the Government Whips Office is blocking progress on this matter, but let us hope that some progress will be made before too long. [Interruption.] Well, that is the situation—that is the reality, and that is the evidence. It is very clear; there is no doubt about it.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

Penblwydd hapus, Mr Speaker, as we say in Wales.

In 1991, 9 million prescriptions were written for antidepressants. By 2016, that figure had gone up to 65 million. In 2004, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence recommended and approved the science of mindfulness for the treatment of repeat episodes of depression. Can the Leader of the House guarantee a debate in Government time on why the use of antidepressants has shot up over that period, while mindfulness has just bubbled along?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker, may I, too, wish you a happy birthday on Saturday? It seems that all the best people are born in January, especially my mum. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That’s on the record now.

[Mr Speaker]

David Bowie was as well.

[Chris Elmore]

Indeed, Mr Speaker.

The Leader of the House will be aware of my ongoing work to try to tackle the impact of social media, especially cyber-bullying, on the mental health of young people. The inquiry I chaired has recently concluded and we hope to bring a report forward this spring. What is clear from the early findings, including from young people who have given reams of oral and written evidence, is that the Government need to do more to start to tackle the problems relating to the effect of social media on young people’s mental health. May we have a debate soon, so that we can debate these important issues and the Government can start responding to the very real problems that young people are facing across social media platforms?

Points of Order

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, thank you for your clarity with regard to taking photos in this place. It was put to me this morning by my local BBC station that MPs in this place are not quite getting the seriousness that the country is feeling when they behave in such a frivolous manner. I take that one stage further: we set rules and laws in this place and expect people to abide by them, but we cannot seem to do that ourselves—not a great look. May I therefore ask you, Mr Speaker, not so much for a reminder of the rules we already know are in place, but to say what the sanctions will be for those who break them? If there are no sanctions, might we change the position to reflect the fact that the rules are being flouted?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and his courtesy in warning me of his intention to raise it. I take seriously these breaches of privacy, and that is what they are—breaches of privacy by one colleague against others—which is why I made my statement earlier today. I do not expect to have to apply, or ask the House to apply, sanctions on colleagues for breaches of this sort, but as a supporter of England’s finest football club the hon. Gentleman will know that the referee has several weapons in his arsenal before resorting to yellow or red cards and he can be assured that the Chair keeps a beady eye on offenders.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. A member of my staff was abused this morning as he sought to come to work. There were no police officers outside the Embankment entrance to Portcullis House. It was not just a random piece of abuse; he was called a “spineless” c-u-n-t. I will not use that word in any circumstances. There is no excuse for abusing him or any other member of staff in that way. Some of us have broad shoulders—I am not going to make a fuss; we all know what happened last week, and I am grateful that the police are finally doing something about it—but it cannot be right that those people are standing outside this place. The man who abused my staff member had been spoken to on three occasions this morning by police officers, but they had then left their post to go somewhere else.

Mr Speaker, I am grateful to the police who keep us safe, and you know the sort of conversations that I and many others have had with them. I do not doubt that they want to do a good job, but unless the Metropolitan police at the most senior level now do their job and make sure that our staff have exactly the same rights as any other worker in any other business, trade or profession, we will have a situation where our members of staff will simply no longer work for us. Mr Speaker, what more can we do?

[Mr Speaker]

I was shocked to hear of that incident, and I concur entirely with everything that the right hon. Lady has said to the Chamber today, as I have done on a number of recent occasions. No one should be subjected to vile abuse of the kind that she has described. I hosted a meeting in Speaker’s House last week with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police, and I referred to the fact of that meeting in the Chamber, I believe last Friday. I have written to the Commissioner, and I have received a very full and encouraging reply from Cressida Dick. I will not read it out to the House, but she, while quite properly explaining how seriously she and her officers take their responsibilities, went on to seek to assure me of an increased police presence and, to some degree, a changed mindset in terms of the importance of proactive measures. Quite why there were no police officers outside Portcullis House at the time I do not at this point know, but I intend to raise the matter, because it is absolutely vital that the aspiration to achieve security is realised, if at all possible, in every particular case. Does the Leader of the House want to come in on that?

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

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

No? Not at this stage.

[Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I ask for clarification? Are you intending to alter the Standing Orders of the House in order to change the way in which business is conducted in the upcoming days and weeks, or are you going to allow those Standing Orders to be changed by a vote of the House? Excuse my ignorance on this, Sir. I ask because if the control of business is taken away from the Government, for example on the issue of Brexit, that has significant ramifications for how we do business in this House and for what is likely to happen in the days and weeks ahead.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I can answer him very simply. No, I have no intention of trying to change the Standing Orders of the House. With the very greatest of respect to the hon. Gentleman, whom I have known for a long time and for whose intelligence I have very high regard, that is not a power of the Speaker. The House is in charge of its Standing Orders, but in so far as he—[Interruption.] No, I am not debating this with him. He raised the point and I am furnishing him with an answer, upon which he can reflect. The later parts of his point of order were frankly hypothetical, and I cannot be expected to treat of hypothetical questions. He asked a specific point in the first part of his inquiry, and I have given him a specific reply. We will leave it there.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Do you agree that the way in which the rules of this House have evolved, and the way in which the current Government have taken to ignoring Opposition motions and not even deigning to vote on them—coupled with the difficult circumstances in which we in the House of Commons now find ourselves in the aftermath of yesterday’s crushing defeat of the Brexit deal—demonstrate that our Standing Orders are probably in need of some evolution, even though I understand that you cannot change them? Will you perhaps think about bringing the Procedure Committee into play at some stage, so that we can take back some control from a dysfunctional Government and make certain that the will of this House can be properly put into effect?

[Mr Speaker]

It is not for me to bring the Procedure Committee into play. However, I am in the hands of the House, and the House can take a view on these matters and may well choose to do so. More widely, I think it is fair to say that quite a number of Members of Parliament on both sides of the House—particularly some very senior and experienced Members—have relayed to me over the last several months their disappointment, concern and in some cases I would go so far as to say distress that what they previously regarded as givens seem no longer to apply. I simply make the point factually that a number of senior Members on the Government Benches have told me that, whatever they think of a particular vote—for example, a vote on an Opposition motion—it should be honoured, because they are putting their commitment to Parliament in front of their commitment to party. So I put that out there. These matters will be aired in this Chamber, and ultimately decided upon in this Chamber, if Members want that to happen. The idea that that can be blocked—I am not saying that that is what is intended—by Executive fiat, for example, is for the birds.

[James Heappey (Wells) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is entirely understandable that you do not want to answer hypotheticals, but for those of us who are trying to understand what might be afoot and to explain it to our constituents, could you confirm whether it is the custom or the rule that rulings on money resolutions are the sole domain of the Chairman of Ways and Means?

[Mr Speaker]

I have made the position clear on money resolutions in the past, and I am not going to entertain hypothetical questions. I have tried to be—[Interruption.] Order. I am not debating the issue with the hon. Gentleman. He has made a point of raising points of order on a number of occasions, and if he wants to have a discussion at some stage, he is perfectly welcome to come to see me, but I am not going to detain the House now with endless exchanges on this matter with people who really want to stage a form of Question Time—[Interruption.] No, I do not require any gesticulation from him; I am telling him that that is the situation.

BILLS PRESENTED

EUROPEAN UNION REFERENDUM (PREPARATION) BILL

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Dominic Grieve, supported by Liz Saville Roberts, Joanna Cherry, Tom Brake, Heidi Allen, Stephen Doughty, Justine Greening, Mr Chris Leslie, Anna Soubry, Chuka Umunna, Caroline Lucas and Dr Phillip Lee, presented a Bill to enable preparations for a referendum about the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 21 January, and to be printed (Bill 318).

EUROPEAN UNION REFERENDUM BILL

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Dominic Grieve, supported by Liz Saville Roberts, Joanna Cherry, Tom Brake, Heidi Allen, Stephen Doughty, Justine Greening, Mr Chris Leslie, Anna Soubry, Chuka Umunna, Caroline Lucas and Dr Phillip Lee, presented a Bill to provide for a referendum about the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 21 January, and to be printed (Bill 319).

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 15th January 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I am extraordinarily grateful, Mr Speaker—[Laughter.]

[Mr Speaker]

To be honest, I do not really mind whether the Leader of the House is grateful or not, but she has the chance.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Thank you for that clarification, Mr Speaker.

With permission, I should like to make a short business statement regarding the business for tomorrow and the remainder of this week.

Wednesday 16 January—The House will be asked to consider a motion of no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government under section 2(4) of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Thursday 17 January—Debate on a motion on mental health first aid in the workplace, followed by a general debate on children’s social care in England. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

I shall make a further business statement in the usual way on Thursday.

[Mr Speaker]

I remind the House that the supplementary business statement is subject to questioning, but its terms are comparatively narrow, and I implore Members to recognise the implication and spirit of that fact.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I thank the Leader of the House for the statement. In the circumstances of the vote, the Opposition concur with the scheduling of the debate tomorrow.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Yes, subject to the agreement of the House.

[Mr Speaker]

It would be useful to know the timings. Ordinarily, the Chair is approached about these matters, which is the sensible way to deal with them. We need to know the timings, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will either be able to advise now or confer with colleagues later in the evening, so that there is clarity on that matter and we will all be very satisfied.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I can confirm that your office, Mr Speaker, has the proposal for a business motion tomorrow that proposes that the debate take place over the whole day, until 7 pm.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

I am not sure whether we are asking questions on the business statement or making points of order.

Given the scale of defeat, the Government must surely have seen the inevitable coming. The issues for debate on Thursday are important, but every day wasted is another day closer to exit, particularly without a deal. Are we really to debate two motions with no consequence on Thursday rather than deciding how we will move forward on a crucial issue facing our country?

[Mr Speaker]

The Leader of the House can add to what she has said in the supplementary business statement if she likes. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying so, that seemed to me a curious hybrid between an attempted point of order and a question on the supplementary business motion. If he had to plump for one or the other, I am not sure which it would be.

These matters can be aired in debate tomorrow, in the business question on Thursday and on subsequent days. I completely understand that the hon. Gentleman is seized of the importance of early progress, but that opportunity will unfold in days to come, and I can predict with confidence that he will be in his place, ready to leap to his feet to share his point of view with the House.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Is this really going to be necessary? I call Simon Hoare.

[Simon Hoare]

Can you confirm, Mr Speaker, that the timetable set out by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House perfectly accords with the amended programme motion that the House voted on last week, which I guess the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) voted for, that the Prime Minister would have three sitting days—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It would not have been agreed if that were not the case. I do not mean to be unkind to the hon. Gentleman, but he is frankly not adding anything by making that point of order. Although I am sure it was perfectly well intended, no additional public service has been provided. If there are further questions to the Leader of the House, I am sure that she will be happy to take them within the confines of the supplementary business motion. If not, I suggest to the House that we proceed to subsequent motions.

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have looked forward to hearing from colleagues who have a chance to participate in the business question—as, of course, the Leader of the House has not merely the opportunity but the obligation to do—so I will content myself simply with saying this.

There was nothing arbitrary about the conduct of the Chair yesterday. This Speaker is well aware of how to go about the business of chairing the proceedings of the House, because he has been doing so for nine and a half years. I hope that colleagues will understand when I say that I require no lessons or lectures from others about how to discharge my obligations to Parliament and in support of the right of Back-Bench parliamentarians. I have been doing it and continuing to do it, and I will go on doing it, no matter how much abuse I get from whatever quarter. It is water off a duck’s back as far as I am concerned.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

Last night in Westminster Hall, during a debate about the armed forces, a Minister put the case very eloquently for more spending on defence, not just because of the threat that this country faces, but because of the wider benefits to society of our armed forces. Would it be possible for us to have such a debate in Government time, so that we could really make the case for investment in our armed forces?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I absolutely reassure the hon. Lady that my advice was that the amendment selected yesterday would not be in order and would not be selectable. That is the advice I received, and I hope that is very clear. With regard to whether the Government will abide by the Grieve amendment, the Government will abide by the Grieve amendment, and I hope that is now entirely clear.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The responsibility for the selection of amendments—I say this not just for Members of the House but for those attending to our proceedings—is, of course, a matter for the Chair. It is a matter for the representative and champion of Parliament; it is not a matter for a representative of the Executive branch, who is the Executive’s representative in the Chamber of the House of Commons. I will do my job, and other people can seek to do theirs.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Before Christmas I raised the serious concern about the escalation of aggravated burglaries in my constituency. These are organised gangs of thugs who break into people’s houses when they are home, beat them up and steal their goods, and they steal their address books so that they can move on to the next house. Unfortunately, this has escalated over Christmas and new year, and I understand from colleagues on both sides of the House that it is happening in other constituencies, too. Can we have a debate in Government time on how we challenge aggravated burglaries and on how we support the police in taking action so that we bring these criminals to justice and imprison them, as they deserve?

Points of Order

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you are aware, at the beginning of Prime Minister’s questions when I was expressing my deep sadness at the loss of Lord Ashdown and his concern for the state of where we are now, the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) loudly shouted from a sedentary position, “From the grave.” I find such a comment disgraceful, and I ask for guidance on how the hon. Gentleman might, for example, retract such a statement and on whether it was becoming of the sort of conduct that we should expect from Members of this House.

[Mr Speaker]

I did hear those words. I did not hear a particular Member, and I did not see a Member mouth those words, but I did hear those words. I think it was most unfortunate that that was said. People sometimes say things instinctively and rashly, but it was most unfortunate. The hon. Lady was perfectly properly paying tribute to an extremely distinguished former Member of this House and someone that many would regard as an international statesperson. What was said should not have been said. If the person who said it wishes to take the opportunity to apologise, it is open to that person to do so.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I will apologise for my remarks if any offence was caused to any Member of the House.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman’s words stand, and I thank him for what he has said.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you know, I have always regarded you as an exceptional Speaker and a defender of Parliament, which I continue to do. However, I also regard the Clerks of the House in exactly the same light. I went to the Table Office late last night to look at the Business of the House (Section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018) (No. 2) (Motion) to see what shenanigans the Government were up to. It had been published, and I thought of proposing an amendment, but I was told that that would be totally out of order and that no other amendments had been tabled. However, there is an amendment to that motion on the Order Paper today, which puts me in something of an unfortunate position, so could you rule on what action might be taken?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. First, let me thank him for his kind remarks that prefaced his inquiry. This is the first that I have learned of the matter, and that makes it difficult for me to give immediate advice. It is a matter upon which I may need to reflect before giving him what I would call substantive advice.

Obviously, I was not aware of the hon. Gentleman’s visit to the Table Office, of which he has now informed me. I understand that he is telling me that he was advised that the motion was unamendable, and I do not know whether he went into the Table Office before the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) or after. All I know is that in my understanding the motion is amendable—I am clear in my mind about that—so insofar as the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) is disappointed that he was unable to table an amendment, I understand that. Whether there is an opportunity for him to do so now seems doubtful. I would have had no objection to him seeking to table an amendment, but I was unaware that he was attempting to do so. That is my honest answer to him. I absolutely accept that he is a person of complete integrity and will always try to do the right thing, and the same goes for me. I am trying to do the right thing and to make the right judgments. That is what I have tried to do and will go on doing.

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope you will bear with me because, as a relatively new Member who has never raised a point of order before, there may be some inaccuracy in the process. Given the comments that you have just made, I wonder whether you could point me towards the precedent that would allow for what seems to be an unamendable motion to be amended.

[Mr Speaker]

I am immensely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am not in the business of invoking precedent, nor am I under any obligation to do so. I think the hon. Gentleman will know that it is the long-established practice of this House that the Speaker in the Chair makes judgments upon the selection of amendments and that those judgments are not questioned by Members of the House. I am clear in my mind that I have taken the right course of action.

By way of explanation to the hon. Gentleman and to the House, the motion in the Prime Minister’s name is indeed a variation of the order agreed by the House on 4 December. Under paragraph (9) of that order, the question on any motion to vary the order “shall be put forthwith.” I interpret that to mean that there can be no debate, but I must advise the House that the terms of the order do not say that no amendment can be selected or moved. I cannot allow debate, but I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield. At the appropriate point, I will invite him to move it once the motion has been moved. That is the position.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. For the convenience of the House, I have brought with me a copy of the original business motion, which was passed by this House on 4 December 2018, and paragraph (9) states:

“No motion to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.”

That was a motion of the House.

Now, I have not been in this House as long as you have, Mr Speaker, but I have been here for 18 years and I have never known any Speaker to overrule a motion of the House of Commons. You have said again and again that you are a servant of this House, and we take you at your word. When people have challenged you in points of order, I have heard you say many times, “I cannot do x or y because I am bound by a motion of the House.” You have done that multiple times in my experience, so why are you overriding a motion of the House today?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his characteristic courtesy. The answer is simple. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a motion and said that no motion in this context, for the purposes of precis, may be moved other than by a Minister of the Crown. ‘Tis so. We are not treating here of a motion but of an amendment to a motion.

[Mr Francois]

That’s ridiculous.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry, but there is a distinction between a motion and an amendment. What the right hon. Gentleman says about a motion I accept, but it does not relate to an amendment. That is the answer.

[Mr Francois]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

No, there is no further.

[Mr Francois]

I am sorry, but that is utter sophistry.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In recent years—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Father of the House is on his feet; let us hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

[Mr Clarke]

In my opinion, in recent years this House has seen a considerable diminution of its powers and has often seemed rather indifferent to the eroding of some of the powers we used to have to hold Governments to account. You, Mr Speaker, have been assiduous in maximising the opportunities for the House to hold what happens to be the Government of the day to account and in giving the opportunity for debate and for voting. I find it unbelievable that people are putting such effort into trying to exclude the possibility of the House expressing its opinion on how it wishes to handle this matter, and I suggest to some of my hon. Friends—the ones who are getting somewhat overexcited—that perhaps they should don a yellow jacket and go outside.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Of course I will come back to other colleagues. I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his point of order, which I think requires no response from me; it stands on its own.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are in an invidious position: you have an extremely difficult job to do, but can you confirm in relation to your rulings—whichever way they go; sometimes we will agree, and sometimes we will disagree—that it would not be in order for you simply to respond to the loudest voice at a particular point of time, or in any way to be pushed by a minority view because some are acting in a co-ordinated way to attempt to overrule your rulings?

[Mr Speaker]

I note what the hon. Gentleman says, and he will not be surprised to know that I share his judgment in the matter. For the avoidance of doubt and the understanding of people who are not Members of the House but are attending to our proceedings, and are possibly even present in the Palace of Westminster today, let me say this so that it is crystal clear from the vantage point of the Chair: what the Chair is proposing to do is select an amendment because in my honest judgment it is a legitimate selection. It is for the House to vote upon—[Interruption.] Order. It is for the House to vote upon that amendment, and indeed to vote upon the motion. The Chair is simply seeking to discharge the responsibility of the holder of the office to the best of his ability. That is what I have always done, and no matter what people say or how forcefully they say it, or how many times they say it or by what manner of co-ordination it is said, I will continue to do what I believe to be right.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you confirm that no amendment to the European withdrawal motion can have any legislative effect and therefore cannot override the express repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 in any shape or form, which was passed under section 1 of the withdrawal Act by this House and by Parliament on 26 June this year?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is yes, the hon. Gentleman is right. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is right: only statute can overrule statute. As usual the hon. Gentleman’s exegesis of the situation is entirely correct. [Interruption.] Somebody chuntered from a sedentary position, “Not as usual”; well, that was my evaluative comment on the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) based on long experience of him, and on this particular point I absolutely accept that he is right.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have often drawn our attention not just to what goes on within the House but the view the public might take of the priorities we hold, so may I ask you to confirm what I believe you just said: if people do not like the amendment you have selected, the simple answer is to vote against it?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Yes. A point of order now from Sir Bernard Jenkin.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I ask you to rule on a different matter, regarding Standing Order No. 118 on how delegated legislation is dealt with in this House, which states at paragraph (6):

“The Speaker shall put forthwith the question thereon”

after orders have been debated upstairs and brought to the Floor of the House? That has always been thought and understood to mean that these motions are unamendable: “forthwith” means unamendable. Why have you changed your interpretation of that word in this case?

[Mr Speaker]

My understanding is that the motion today, and the amendment, are undebatable: there is to be no debate on them. I have not made, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, a change of judgment specifically for today. I understand what the hon. Gentleman tells me in respect of the traditional treatment of delegated legislation, upon which he may himself be a considerable authority. I think it reasonable to say by way of response that I cannot be expected to make a comprehensive judgment on that related question now, but I stand by the view I have expressed to the House. I completely respect the fact that the hon. Gentleman takes a view that differs from my own, but that is in the nature of debate and argument.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Government have a track record on this: they have a track record of trying to prevent this House from having its say over all aspects of the Brexit process, and what the public cannot see is the Chief Whip sitting there at the end of the Treasury Bench feverishly briefing journalists and texting Members in a co-ordinated attempt to undermine your judgment, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) is raising a point of order and he is entitled to be heard, and he will be heard.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member for Wellingborough made a reasonable point about going into the Table Office and being able to table an amendment. Is there not a problem here, Mr Speaker, as the fact is that the Government have had four weeks to get this right, but did not table the Business of the House motion until well gone 6 o’clock last night? Indeed, Members of this House were sitting in a meeting with the Prime Minister and Chief Whip and there was complete confusion about whether the Business of the House motion had gone down; there was a deliberate attempt to prevent amendments from being tabled and the House knowing what was going on. Do you agree that that is not acceptable, Mr Speaker?

[Mr Speaker]

My understanding is that the Business of the House motion was tabled yesterday afternoon by the Government; I confess I do not know at precisely what time, but my recollection and understanding are that it was tabled yesterday afternoon. It is for Members to judge in the light of the chronology of events of recent weeks whether that was altogether helpful. Clearly the Government Chief Whip will do what he judges to be right on behalf of his Prime Minister and his Government; I acknowledge that. Whether Members elsewhere in the House found it particularly helpful is perhaps an essay question which I leave to others.

[Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have to tell you that I am absolutely hopping mad. When I became an MP three years ago I was determined that I would not become part of the establishment. Do people in this House have any idea how out of touch the general public think we are most days? We are talking about 79 days to potentially crashing out of Europe without a deal; our focus should not be on the detail of, and arguments about, the process in this place; it should be about getting on with a plan B if Parliament decides next week that the Government’s plan is not the one for the people. When are we are going to start acting like public servants and doing the right thing and having the debate and getting on with it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I have the highest respect for the hon. Lady, as she knows. I take on board what she says and I do not dissent from it. Equally, however, if Members raise points of order it is my responsibility to deal with them as fairly and effectively as I can. Clearly there will, I think, be a desire at some stage to proceed to the substance of the matters with which we are supposed to be dealing, but if there are further points of order, of course I will hear them and do my best to respond.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In my previous job in the European Parliament I often found that I was being asked to vote on amendments that had not been debated, and one of the things I really like about this House is that, before we vote on amendments, we get a chance to debate them. Can you confirm that, if this amendment is put to a vote today, we will have had a chance to debate it?

[Mr Speaker]

No, for the very simple reason that the terms for today, specified by the Government Chief Whip, specify no debate. If the hon. Lady asks me whether there will be a debate, the honest answer is no, but that is not my fault.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will appreciate that there are Members around the House who have concerns about your decision today. I think it would be very helpful to the House if you could confirm that your decision was taken with the full advice and agreement of the Clerk of the House of Commons and, perhaps to help the House, you might agree to publish that advice so that the House can understand the reasons for your decision. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Forgive me, colleagues, but I want to hear the right hon. Lady’s point of order. I heard the start of it, but I did not hear its continuation, so please let us hear it.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As you will have heard today, there are some concerns about the decision you have taken in the context of the Business of the House motion. Could you therefore please confirm that your decision was taken with full advice from the Clerk of the House of Commons and other senior parliamentary advisers and whether, under these circumstances, you might consider publishing that advice?

[Hon. Members]

Publish it.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I thank the Leader of the House for her point of order, and what I say to her is twofold. First, of course I consult the Clerk of the House and other senior Clerks, and I hear their advice. That advice is tendered to me privately, and that is absolutely proper, but it is also true that I had a written note from the Clerk of the House, from which I quoted in responding to an earlier point of order.

If the right hon. Lady is inquiring whether there is what she might consider to be, in governmental terms, full written advice, a paper or a written brief, or whatever, there is none such. I have just told her what the situation is, I quoted from what was provided to me by the Clerk of the House and I have given my ruling. That is the situation.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am grateful for your reply. My question really is, did the Clerk of the House of Commons propose that your solution is acceptable, or did the Clerk advise against it?

[Mr Speaker]

The answer is that I have discussed the matter with the Clerk of the House. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Order. The Clerk offered me advice, and we talked about the situation that faces the House today. At the end of our discussion, when I had concluded as I did, he undertook to advise me further in the treatment of this matter—that seems to me to be entirely proper. That is the situation, and I think that is what colleagues would expect.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just before I begin, I wish Michel Barnier a happy 68th birthday today. The contention in which this amendment is held is surely all the justification required for Members to vote on it and to decide one way or the other, and you are correct in what you are doing.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you.

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

On account of his seniority I will take a further point of order from the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope he will not push his luck.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. As you know, I respect the Chair and I would never push my luck with you. I do not challenge the decision by any means, and it is your right to make it from the Chair, but over the past 24 or 25 years I have on a number of occasions, particularly during the Maastricht debates, asked the Clerks whether we could amend a Business of the House motion. I was always told categorically that precedent says it is not possible and, therefore, there was no point seeking to do so—I say that only as a statement.

Because this has a big impact on the Government’s ability to get their business, regardless of Brexit, will the instruction go to the Clerks that, in future, a Back Bencher wishing to amend a “forthwith” motion will now have such an amendment allowed and accepted against any business in the House?

[Mr Speaker]

It seems entirely reasonable for me to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I would like to reflect on that matter. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Order. Members cavil as though there is an assumption that there should be immediate and comprehensive knowledge of all circumstances that might subsequently unfold. It may be that there are Members who feel they possess such great wisdom and, if so, I congratulate them upon the fact. I do not claim that wisdom, so I am giving what I absolutely admit is a holding answer to the right hon. Gentleman. I will reflect on the point, but if he is asking whether I think it is unreasonable that people might seek to amend a Business of the House motion, I do not think it is unreasonable. If, in future, Back Benchers were to seek to do so, it would seem sensible to me to say, “Let us look at the merits of the case.”

Finally, in attempting to respond not only to the right hon. Gentleman but to some of the concerns that have been expressed, I understand the importance of precedent, but precedent does not completely bind, for one very simple reason. [Interruption.] I say this for the benefit of the Leader of the House, who is shaking her head. If we were guided only by precedent, manifestly nothing in our procedures would ever change. Things do change. I have made an honest judgment. If people want to vote against the amendment, they can; and if they want to vote for it, they can.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I remind the House that, further to what you have just said, it was because of your courage in allowing an amendment to a Loyal Address, which enabled a referendum test to be applied in this House, that we had the referendum in due course and we are where we are? Let nobody suggest that you, by your actions, have been undermining Brexit. It would seem to me to be an absolute own goal for this House if we started undermining your position in the Chair. As an independently-minded Government Back Bencher, I strongly resent the fact that the Government pairing Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), who is on the right-hand side of your Chair, has been trying to orchestrate objections to your decision.

[Mr Speaker]

Let me say this to the hon. Gentleman. So far as his last remark was concerned, I think I can cope with that. Government Whips going about their business in their own way is something to which the Chair is very well and long accustomed. The notion that a Government Whip might now and again do things that are unhelpful to the Chair is not entirely novel. I have broad shoulders and I am not going to lose any sleep over that—never have done, am not doing so and never will.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his characteristic courtesy and his sense of fairness. He recalls the record accurately: I did indeed select an additional amendment to the Humble Address, if memory services me correctly, in 2013, and that was in the name of Mr John Baron. That amendment was on the subject of a referendum on British membership of the European Union, so what the hon. Gentleman says is true.

The fact is that there is a responsibility on the Chair to do their best to stand up for the rights of the House of Commons, including the views of dissenters on the Government Benches—that is to say, independent-minded souls who do not always go with the Whip—and to defend the rights of Opposition parties and very small parties, as well. I have always sought to do that, and on the Brexit issue, as on every issue, what the record shows, if I may say so—and I will—is that this Chair, on a very, very, very big scale, calls Members from across the House with a very large variety of opinions. Ordinarily, as colleagues will acknowledge, when statements are made to the House, my practice, almost invariably, is to call each and every Member, whether the Government like it or not. That is not because I am setting myself up against the Government, but because I am championing the rights of the House of Commons.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Do you agree that over the past few years we have seen a big evolution in the way the Government treat motions in this House? That was partly brought about by the Wright reforms, but we have seen the widespread ignoring of motions passed in this House, and the beginning of a practice of not voting on motions—especially Opposition motions—that the Government feel are somehow awkward for them. Do you agree, Mr Speaker, that this has taken away from the importance of the decisions that this House of Commons makes? Do you therefore also agree that allowing this House of Commons to vote on more issues, in a context in which those votes have to be taken and put into effect, empowers this House of Commons and demonstrates that it is taking back control? As Speaker, you have an absolute duty to ensure that this House of Commons is taken seriously, which is why I commend you for the decision you have taken today.

[Mr Speaker]

Rather than deal in detail with what the hon. Lady has said, I will say that I agree with her assessment of recent events, and of course I thank her for agreeing with me.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The advice of the Clerks is entirely properly between you and the Clerks—that is an accepted principle—but if this place is to operate properly and effectively, it has to be on an established, rules-based system, as referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith). May I ask you, Sir, to reflect on two things? First, if there is to be what one would consider to be a fairly seismic change in the definition of terms in this place, the role of the Procedure Committee in that should be taken into account. Secondly, I say this to you personally, Mr Speaker. We need to reflect in this place not on the personalities or the politics, but on the dignity of the office of Speaker and the dignity of the Chair. I think we are—I say this with sadness—in pretty choppy and dangerous waters at the time in our nation’s affairs when, frankly, we can least afford it.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extraordinarily grateful for the point of order from the hon. Gentleman; I know he is deeply versed in the affairs of the House and takes his responsibilities to it very seriously indeed. I shall reflect most carefully on every word of what he has said to me today. I agree that there could well be a role for the Procedure Committee in relation to this matter, and thank him for what he has said.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I will come to other colleagues, if that is what colleagues wish.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the crisis that the country is facing over Brexit, the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has just said, the House of Commons is taking back control is to be welcomed, rather than feared. Mr Speaker, you have made your ruling; it is clear; the House should respect it. I wonder whether you could advise us on how we could now move on to the business of the day, to which I think the nation expects us to turn our attention.

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that I am in the hands of colleagues, and I think he knows me well enough to know that I have never ducked a challenge. That is not in my nature; it has been no part of my DNA, either since I have been in this House or in all my life before I came into Parliament. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) says from a sedentary position words to the effect of “Let’s get on.” I would like to move on, but I do wish to treat colleagues with courtesy. [Interruption.] Somebody said “You can,” but I will take a few remaining points of order if people wish to raise them. I say very gently to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who just raised his point of order and talked about the dignity of the Chair and the importance of our procedures, that if people are going to invoke that importance, it would be helpful if they did not undermine that self-same point by continuous and repetitive dispute.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have two points on which I would be grateful for clarity. First, section 9 of the order of the House that sets out the terms of the debate says that no motion may be made other than by a Minister of the Crown, and you have interpreted that to mean that an amendment can be made to the motion. The question on that motion, as amended, then has to be put, and that is the motion that, under the order, needs to be moved by a Minister of the Crown. Is it therefore the case that the question may not be put on the motion, if amended, unless the motion is adopted by a Minister of the Crown?

I then have a second point. [Interruption.] If I may come to the second point, which is the precedential—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s first point and I would like to hear his second.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The second point relates to the interpretation of the word “forthwith” and, for the benefit of the Commons Journal tomorrow, how it is to be understood in future when such matters arise. Page 458 of “Erskine May”, which I am sure you have, Mr Speaker, says that such questions

“must be put forthwith without any possibility of amendment”.

That reads as a single set, rather than as though “forthwith” was simply being qualified. The question that then arises is on the other important Standing Orders that are affected by the “forthwith” question. I think particularly of Standing Order No. 44, relating to disorderly conduct, which states that the question must be put forthwith but makes no mention of amendment one way or another. It seems to me that it would be deeply troublesome if “forthwith” came to allow amendments under such circumstances, so I think that the precedential effect of your ruling needs to be clarified.

[Mr Speaker]

I am happy to reflect on the second point, which is not altogether dissimilar to that raised earlier by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith). It is a very serious question and it warrants a serious reply. I am not sure whether it is reasonable to expect a full reply today—I am not sure whether that is what the hon. Gentleman is seeking—but if the hon. Gentleman is saying to me in his typically courteous way that this is an important matter and that we need a judgment on it, either from the Chair alone or from the Chair acting on the advice of, for example, the Procedure Committee, I agree with him.

On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, the answer is that if the motion has been moved, the question on it must then be put. For the avoidance of doubt, I say that on the basis of specialist advice.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point is equally important constitutionally. Are there any means available to this House of communicating to the Conservative party that we are all now bored and tired of all these points of order? The nation is increasingly embarrassed by them. How do we therefore get on with today’s debate?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has made his point, and I am grateful to him.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I must say that I never bore of the proceedings of this House and of doing my job, even if others do. A few moments ago, you said that only statute can overrule statute. The section of the Act to which this motion relates specified a period of 21 calendar days for the Government to come back. This motion specifies three sitting days. Which one has precedence and why did you select this amendment?

[Mr Speaker]

I have already explained the situation that appertains to the amendment. I do not wish to be unkind to the hon. Gentleman, but if, after all these exchanges, he is still not clear about my rationale for the selection of the amendment, I am not sure, frankly, whether I can greatly help him. I think I am right in saying that the reference to 21 days, as I have just been advised from a sedentary position by the Clerk of the House, is a 21-day maximum. When the hon. Gentleman enquires about supremacy—which of the two takes precedence—I simply make the point that that which is governed by statute is a matter of legal fact. Earlier in this series of exchanges, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) asked me to confirm his legal understanding, and I did. That seems to me to treat of the point that concerns the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster).

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There will be times in this House when we agree and times when we disagree, but I respect the ruling that you have made today. How can we put on the record that it is reprehensible that there are right hon. and hon. Members in this House who have often advocated our taking back control, but who are now doing the complete opposite in seeking to challenge your ruling? Let us not forget that this amendment seeks to decrease the uncertainty currently being experienced by millions of people across our country—our constituents, our public services and our businesses. How can we make it known to people outside the House who are watching our proceedings that the majority, I believe, of this House respect your ruling, and do not believe that what we are experiencing in this House is any way for us to conduct our affairs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady. She, like many others, has made her position very clear, and that stands on the record for people to scrutinise. On the issues to be voted on today, I return to the point that I was making earlier: I hope that colleagues and those attending to our proceedings outwith the Chamber will understand me when I say that these issues are for the House to decide. I am simply making a selection and then inviting Members of the House of Commons to vote and reach their conclusions. I expect many people feel that it would be seemly and advantageous if we were to do so relatively soon; we have another piece of business first.

[Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have said that you consulted the Clerks. For the sake of clarity, will you kindly inform the House whether the decision that you have arrived at is different from the initial advice provided to you by the Clerks?

[Mr Speaker]

I am not confirming or denying that. I am saying what I said earlier, which is that I had a discussion with the Clerk and with other Clerks. We discussed the situation, the various scenarios and the proffering of advice, and I stand by what I said. I have nothing to add to that. It is perfectly proper for the Speaker to consult and hear the views of the Clerks who serve at the Table, and sometimes other Clerks as well.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I really seek your guidance for myself and perhaps for others in this House. There is a difference between a motion and an amendment. If the Government had wished to prevent amendments, would not a better worded motion a few weeks ago have relieved them of the problem that they find themselves with today?

[Mr Speaker]

I am not sure whether I want to speculate on that, but the hon. Gentleman has obviously applied his beady eye to the material on the Order Paper, and he has reached that conclusion. Others may also do so.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You and your deputies have a well deserved reputation for being absolute sticklers for protocols, processes and conventions in this place, which occasionally I find quite frustrating, but which I utterly respect. To that end, would it be in order for you, in considering this important matter, to consult with your deputies as to the appropriateness of accepting this amendment?

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but the short answer is no, and I shall tell him why. The clue is in the title, “The Speaker in the Chair”. The Speaker is elected to discharge his responsibilities to the House to the best of his ability. That is what I have done, diligently, conscientiously and without fail for the past nine and a half years. Mine is the responsibility. I do not seek to duck it.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Do you agree that in all our experiences in this House, it is extremely unwise to thrust civil servants and officials, who give their advice in confidence and are neutral, into the public domain in this way? When it has happened in the past, it has often ended very badly indeed for those individuals. The House should stop that. It is extremely inappropriate for a Leader of the House to lead that charge.

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman makes his own point in his own way with considerable force and alacrity. I respect him and I respect what he said. As to how others choose to go about their work, that is a matter for them. As far as I am concerned, I am a member of the legislature. I am the Speaker of the House of Commons, a very important part of Parliament. My job is not to be a cheerleader for the Executive branch; my job is to stand up for the rights of the House of Commons, and the Speaker will assuredly do so.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In your response to the point of order from my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), you said that this was an unprecedented thing. In response to the point of order from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), you said that you did not necessarily intend this to set a future precedent. It is clear that it is important that you are, and that you are seen and believed to be, impartial. Clearly, there is a huge appetite to explore the implications of this decision. Might it not be wise not to implement this decision at such a contentious point in time, to reflect on both—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Had the hon. Gentleman completed his remarks?

[James Cleverly]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

Please finish.

[James Cleverly]

Would it not be appropriate to take time to reflect on the precedent that this decision might set, and instead to make a decision in slower time at a less contentious moment in the business of this House?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I respect his sincerity, but—I hope he will see this point even if he does not agree with it—the responsibility is mine, and it is not tomorrow, next week, next month, next year; it is now. The Chair has to make his best judgment there and then. That is what I have done, honourably and conscientiously in the firm and continuing conviction that I am right. So while I respect the hon. Gentleman and his sincerity in his point of order, the short answer to him is no.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Any of our constituents watching this now will be deeply worried about the future of our country and will not be impressed by this spectacle. A number of the points of order have articulated a series of finely detailed points, but they amount to the same thing: a tedious repetition. Is there anything in the rules of the House that prevents the abuse of the time made available to this House by making the same point over and over again?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Well, I do not think it is helpful when people just make the same point over and over and over again, but as I myself have often observed, it is not unprecedented. [Interruption.] The point has just been made elegantly and eloquently from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) that continued repetition is not entirely a novel phenomenon in the House of Commons, so I will deal with it. However, there is a ten-minute rule motion with which to deal, and the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) is waiting to present that ten-minute rule motion, and we do then have important business to dispatch. Unless people really feel that they have something new to raise by way of a point of order, I ask them in all courtesy to consider not doing so at this time.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, may I ask you to confirm that Members have an absolute right to raise points of order with you and to challenge you in the excellent job that you do as a servant of the House? This afternoon we have been told that we are reprehensible by some Members, and have been accused of wasting time and of being part of a co-ordination. I am part of no co-ordination in this place and never will be.

Secondly, with the greatest respect to you, Mr Speaker—I am agnostic on the decision that you have made and believe you have the absolute right to make it—we talk about the public out there, and there are a lot of people who believe that there is a conspiracy and a procedural stitch-up taking place by a House of Commons which, on the substantive issue of leaving or remaining in the European Union, is grossly out of touch with the referendum result. With that in mind, although I accept your decision and would indeed be more than happy to support you in it, may I again ask that any advice proffered on this matter should be put into the public domain so that the public can make their own decision about that?

[Mr Speaker]

The Clerk has just said to me that advice to the Speaker is private, but I do have two things to say to the hon. Gentleman. First, perhaps I can concur with him; I know him, and his whole political background and track record in this place prove that he is not part of co-ordinated efforts. He is very much his own person, and he knows that I have always respected him for that as well as for a number of his other qualities.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman refers to a perception out there. To some degree, this brings us back to earlier points of order. I often have to explain this point to constituents and to people I meet around the country, so let me again say this and let me say it explicitly: it is not for the Chair either to try to push a policy through or to prevent a policy being pushed through. That is not the role of the Speaker of the House. The role of the Speaker of the House is to chair as effectively as he or she can in the Chamber and in the management of the day-to-day business, including the selection of amendments, new clauses and so on. What the House chooses to do is a matter for the House. If that applies across the piece, manifestly it applies to the subject of Brexit. What happens on this subject is not a matter for me; I am simply seeking to facilitate the House in deciding what it wants to decide. That has always been my attitude, it remains my attitude and it will continue to be my attitude. Let the House decide on the policy.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was not intending to make a point of order, but it is important for me to place on record that in the eight and a half years I have been in this place, every time I have had an occasion to speak to any of the House officials—the Table Office, the Clerks, the Public Bill Office or the Private Bill Office—I have been given the most brilliant advice from everyone. It is really improper for Members here to be saying that advice given to you by the Clerks in the execution of their duty should be revealed publicly. That is most inappropriate and is putting the Clerks in an invidious political position.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for what she has said. I do not know whether there is any precedent for such advice having been issued, but my understanding is that it has not previously been issued. I said what I did in response to an earlier point of order on the basis, once more, of clerkly advice. I know that the Clerk would concur with that view, as I do.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This year will be 30 years since we first met in the final of the competition to be selected for Bristol South, and both of us have been on something of a journey since then. When you were elected as Speaker, you said you would serve for nine years. There has been the controversy of the recommendations of the Dame Laura Cox inquiry into the House of Commons, and you have been defended, particularly by two right hon. Opposition Members, on the importance of your being sustained in position beyond the nine years in order to oversee the discussions and denouement of the Brexit issue.

The uncomfortable conclusion, Mr Speaker, given the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) and the implications of the precedent that you have set with this ruling today, is that many of us will now have an unshakeable conviction that the referee of our affairs, not least because you made public your opinion and your vote on the issue of Brexit, is no longer neutral. I just invite you to reflect on the conclusion that many of us inevitably will have come to.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of view. He is quite right that we met, I think, in the anteroom of the Bristol Conservative Association headquarters at 5 Westfield Park, Redland, Bristol in July 1989, so we have known each other for a long time and I take in a perfectly good spirit what the hon. Gentleman has said.

I have explained in response to previous points of order and adduced evidence in support of my argument, including that proffered by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), that I have always done my conscientious best to champion the rights of Members wishing to push their particular point of view on a range of issues and, perhaps most strikingly, on this issue. That is what the record shows. I have always been scrupulously fair to Brexiteers and remainers alike, as I have always been to people of different opinions on a miscellany of other issues. That has been the case, it is the case and it will continue to be the case.

As for the other point that the hon. Gentleman made, he will know that I was re-elected unanimously by this House on, I think, 13 June 2017, for the Parliament. If I have a statement on that matter to make, I would of course make it to the House first. I think that most people would accept that that is entirely reasonable.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I never thought that I was going to be one of the people who would care about the procedures of this House. I scoffed at people who talked of procedure. When I arrived here, I realised that actually it is the procedures of this House, and protecting and developing them, that will make our democracy considerably better. I wonder if you agree with me, Mr Speaker—I have seen two occasions this week of what I am about to say—that people only care about the procedures, and protecting and conserving the procedures, when they do not like the outcome of the thing that is about to happen, and never when it is going in their favour.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady has made her own points with force and style. I think we all know—[Interruption.] Let me put it like this; I will not get into that. I think we all know from our own constituencies that people are inclined to complain about a process when they do not like a result. In this case, to be fair, the result will come only when we have votes on an amendment and a motion. If what the hon. Lady is implying is that people are complaining because they do not like the amendment that has been selected, well, she has made her own point, and that may very well be so. I certainly would not impugn for one moment the integrity of Members of this House who have challenged me today, as they are absolutely entitled to do, and made their own points. I hope that throughout these exchanges today it will be demonstrably obvious to everybody that no matter what point people have made, and how forcefully they have made it, I have heard it, I have heard it fully, I have heard it with courtesy, and I have responded to it with courtesy. That has been my approach and it will always be.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I join with many others in saying that I appreciate and respect the extent to which you listen to everyone and ensure that everyone is given a courteous, fair and proper hearing, and that the voices and votes of all people should be listened to? That includes, of course, the 17.4 million people who voted leave and will be watching these proceedings and worried about the direction of the House of Commons.

On the substantive question, may I ask for your advice and guidance on the amendment in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve)? The reason I raise this is that I am wondering why you selected it, as it seems to me to be defective. It says that

“a minister of the crown shall table within three sitting days a motion under section 13”.

However, there is no sanction if a Minister of the Crown does not table such a motion; nor indeed does it say which Minister of the Crown it needs to be; and if a motion were to be tabled within three sitting days, there is nothing to force it actually to be taken, because it could end up in the “Remaining orders and notices” section indefinitely. So why are we having this sort of amendment when actually, it seems to me, it does not have any effect?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said at the start of his remarks and for his usual courtesy. What I would say to him on the substance of the issue is as follows. The judgment for the Chair is whether an amendment—in this context we are talking about an amendment—is orderly and selectable. It is not incumbent upon the Chair to seek to interpret the amendment. That is not my responsibility. If the hon. Gentleman is quizzical on that point—if he believes it to be, as he put it, I think, ineffective, or not effective—his inquiry on that matter should, if I may say so, be lobbed, gently or otherwise, in the direction of his right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), whose amendment it is. That—I am very clear intellectually on this point—is not a matter for me. It may well be very important to the hon. Gentleman, and perhaps to other people, but it is a matter to raise either personally with the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield or in an indirect way.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I will take remaining points of order from the Government Benches.

[Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), we have all noticed in recent months a sticker in your car that makes derogatory comments about Brexit—[Hon. Members: “Oh.”] No, this is a serious point about partiality. Have you driven that car with the sticker there?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. [Interruption.] I think the record will show—and I have the highest regard and affection for the hon. Gentleman—that I have listened to all the points of order. The only reason why I interrupt him at this point—I hope he will forgive my doing so—is that there was a factual error in his opening remarks. I am sure it was an inadvertent error, and I mean that most sincerely, but it was a factual error. He said that in recent months it had been noticed that there was a sticker in my car. That sticker on the subject of Brexit happens to be affixed to, or in the windscreen of, my wife’s car. [Laughter.] Yes, it is. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not suggest for one moment that a wife is somehow the property or chattel of her husband. She is entitled to her views. That sticker is not mine, and that is the end of it.

[Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the House is now ready to move on. We have a long day ahead of us, and I beg to move that we proceed to the next business.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, that is not a motion that I can accept, but I would like to propose that we come now to the ten-minute rule motion. I call Mr Leo Docherty.