Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I congratulate Amanda on a fantastic achievement and wish her great success with the event. My hon. Friend is right to highlight our gratitude for the work of volunteers, fundraisers and campaigners and some of the things that make us one of the most generous countries in the world. Through the Government’s “Challenge on Dementia 2020”, we are working towards a society in which every person with dementia receives high-quality, compassionate care from diagnosis through to end of life. My parliamentary office staff and I have all undertaken dementia-friendly training in the past couple of weeks, and I recommend it to all hon. Members. It really is a fantastic way for all of us to be more attuned to the needs of those with dementia and their carers.

[Mr Speaker]

I endorse that call. My own office undertook that training over a year ago—I cannot remember exactly when, but it was well over a year ago—and it is a very good training programme and well worth enjoying—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) does not need to be frivolous about it; it is in fact a serious point.

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

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week. It has been a depressing and dispiriting few weeks for those of us who are concerned about workplace bullying in this place, and Dame Laura Cox’s report contains a damning litany of the scale of the problem. The Leader of the House has been an effective champion in tackling the problem, and I am glad to see that a debate on Dame Laura’s report has been scheduled for a week on Monday.

We know that the report will be implemented in full, but it is time to challenge the ingrained culture of and the power relationships within this House, and an easy start would be to tackle the deference. That means no more “hon. Gentlemen”, no more swords, no more spying strangers or segregated areas. For goodness’ sake, it should really mean the end of people calling themselves Lords on the parliamentary estate. If we are serious about changing the workplace culture and environment, we must challenge those symbols and power relationships, and I hope that we can include that as part of our ongoing work.

Simply appalling remarks were made in the Scottish Parliament yesterday when the Conservative social security spokesperson, a Ms Michelle Ballantyne, said about the two-child benefit cap:

“It is fair that people on benefits cannot have as many children as they like”.—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 24 October 2018; c. 52.]

That comment has shocked and appalled mainstream opinion in Scotland. We do not want those 19th-century Tory Victorian values in Scotland. We want a social security system designed with dignity and respect at its heart. Can we have a debate on further devolution of social security so that the views of people such as Ms Ballantyne hold no sway in our nation?

Lastly, Mr Speaker, we are very grateful to you for allowing MP4 to use Speaker’s House tonight for the launch of our new single. We have teamed up with Musicians Against Homelessness and Crisis to draw cross-party attention to homelessness throughout the UK. I do not think we will bother the charts, and we are not seriously considering giving up the day job, but I hope the Leader of the House might be among the first to download the single this evening.

[Mr Speaker]

MP4 are a great band and, as the hon. Gentleman will recall, they have performed in my constituency—I have very fond memories of that experience. The band have been in Speaker’s House before, and I am keen that they should come again and again.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Mr Speaker, I completely share your enthusiasm for MP4. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) might want to think about a cover version of a well-known song: “You Can’t Always Get What You Want”. I will leave that thought with him.

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman: his personal involvement in the establishment of the complaints procedure and his absolute commitment to stamping out bullying and harassment wherever we see it are completely united with those of the entire working group. This was a fantastic piece of cross-party work, and there can be no doubt that all hon. and right hon. Members want to see change in this place.

The hon. Gentleman raises some interesting suggestions, and I have a lot of sympathy for what he says. I am therefore delighted to provide a debate on Monday 5 November so that we can hear from all hon. Members about the changes they want to see. I would prefer to see structural changes, rather than superficial changes to titles—perhaps something a little more deep and meaningful. I hope that on that Monday we will also be able to discuss what structural changes could be made.

The hon. Gentleman mentions the Scottish Parliament and further devolution. Of course funding for the Scottish Government, the block grant, will have grown to more than £31 billion by 2020, a real-terms increase over the current spending review period. It is for the Scottish Government to make some of their own decisions, rather than just looking to the UK Parliament to resolve those issues for them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

That was terrible! Resign. Instantly. [Laughter.]

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you for that.

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

As the Leader of the House will no doubt be aware, off-grid gas and heating oils, which are essential in rural communities such as those in the highlands, are unregulated, and there is no way for Ofgem to intervene where there is a monopoly. Will she allow a debate in Government time on the regulation of off-grid fuel and end the great winter rural fuel rip-off?

Bullying and Harassment: Cox Report

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before calling the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) to ask his urgent question, I wish to make the following brief remarks. Having read with care the report by Dame Laura Cox and having also lived through the MPs’ expenses scandal, I am persuaded by at least two of her fundamental recommendations. Without seeking to pre-empt what the House might ultimately decide, I firmly believe that the only possible way to resolve this matter is the establishment of a body that is both entirely independent of and external to Parliament to hear and adjudicate on all allegations of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct, including deciding how far to investigate past misconduct. Whether the allegations involve MPs or staff, the same entirely independent body should be in complete control of the process from start to finish. As I have said before in this Chamber and to the Leader of the House’s cross-party inquiry in my oral evidence last December, independence and transparency are the best guarantors of a process that will both be fair and command general confidence.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I feel totally and utterly maddened by this. I am not here to defend anybody—including you, Mr Speaker. I have spoken to hundreds of the people involved throughout this process, and the neither right nor honourable—in my opinion; he probably is not either anyway—Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) has probably spoken to none of them. Some of us do not care who is the offender; it is the victims we care about and we will not use this for political gain. Nothing fills the victims with more dread than when people play with their feelings, so I say to him don’t do it—don’t do it for them; you are speaking only for yourself.

I personally think that the management of this place probably needs a massive overhaul, although I will not point the finger for the sake of newspaper headlines. But the fact of the matter is that nothing I have heard today fills me with any hope that politics will be taken out of this and that the same 12 people—we all know exactly who they are and how they are getting away with it—will not be walking around here for the next 20 years. What will the Leader of the House do about it?

[Mr Speaker]

Before the Leader of the House responds, I want to say one thing. It was important that the hon. Lady was heard fully, but everybody in this place is honourable, and I am certainly not suggesting that the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) is not an honourable Member. He has put his view, about which I have made no complaint, the hon. Lady has put her view, and the Leader of the House will respond.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I think my response is, “Let’s all treat each other with dignity and respect,” but if the hon. Lady knows of 12 people who are walking around abusing people, she should report them. There is now somewhere to report them to, and she should do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is important to be clear. I hear what the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) has said and express no view on that, but the present composition is determined in accordance with statute, so it has not just happened by happenstance or because a particular individual has a given preference. [Interruption.] No, I am sure the hon. Gentleman is certainly not suggesting that. It is the result of law, and law can of course be changed.

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

The Leader of the House and others have spoken about the critical change of culture we need to achieve, but as we know, the problem is rarely with those who engage; it is actually with those who do not. Does the Leader of the House agree that every MP, whether they are here or elsewhere on the estate or around the country, should today take personal responsibility for that change in culture and lead the way by undertaking training, whether compulsory or not, in harassment and bullying? Furthermore, can she say when such training will be available and does she agree that the details should published so that those who do not engage are publicly encouraged to do so?

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 11th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend and I would agree about the need to deliver more new homes so that people are able to have a home of their own, but it is also important to be clear that local authorities would have to show that they have exhausted all other reasonable options, including brownfield and joint projects with neighbouring authorities, before they could tackle the green belt. He is right to prioritise protections for parks, and I am sure that he will find an opportunity, perhaps at next week’s Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions, to raise the issue directly with Ministers.

[Mr Speaker]

I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman enjoyed his answer from the Leader of the House as much as I enjoyed both question and answer.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

How will we know?

[Mr Speaker]

Well, we will not know, but the right hon. Gentleman is smiling and looks content. I notice that some observers were much smitten by his eloquence, and we are deeply obliged to him.

[Dame Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

Many of my constituents are suffering because of the way in which assessments for personal independence payments are being made. There is growing concern as universal credit is to be rolled out across Liverpool. Will a Minister make a statement about what is actually happening on the ground, rather than taking cover in generalised statements that often hide the reality of acute hardship for people in need?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

As my hon. Friend knows, our absolute priority is to secure a basis for political talks and to re-establish at the earliest possible opportunity a locally elected, democratically accountable devolved Government who work for everyone in Northern Ireland. As he says, a Bill to facilitate certain decision making in Northern Ireland is under consideration. It will be published shortly, and there will of course be ample opportunity for the House to consider it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, Mr Ian Mearns.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

As always, Mr Speaker, I am very grateful.

I thank the Leader of the House for her business statement, and for mentioning Monday’s very important and moving debate to mark Baby Loss Awareness Week. On the same day, owing to time pressure from other business, we lost a second debate on the important subject of children’s services, which must now be rescheduled.

I note that the Leader of the House did not tell us what would be happening during the week beginning 22 October. We already know that the Budget debate will begin on 29 October and culminate on 1 November, which means that there will be no Back-Bench business during that week. Will the Leader of the House try to secure some time for the week beginning 22 October? There is one time-sensitive debate—an important debate about Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus Awareness Week —that we hope can be slotted in, and if we could be given some time during that week, we should be very grateful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

As we celebrate another fantastic Ryder cup win, it is appropriate to reflect on the role of Scunthorpe’s Tony Jacklin. At a time when the Ryder cup was going through difficulty, he was instrumental in rejuvenating the cup, as its most successful captain ever. As the only British golfer to win both the British and US Opens, his is surely the sort of achievement worthy of a knighthood. May we have a statement on how the nation can properly recognise Tony Jacklin’s contribution to golf and wider public life?

[Mr Speaker]

He is a great British sporting hero—I remember him from my childhood. If I may be permitted, let me say from the Chair: what a splendid inquiry.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I must agree with you, Mr Speaker. I must also tell the hon. Gentleman that he will have made my son’s day, because he is a big fan of Tony Jacklin and the Ryder cup. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that this year’s was something of a triumph, and we were all glued to our screens. He raises an important point and I recommend that he puts Tony Jacklin forward for an award—I am sure many Members from across the House might provide letters of support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Chris—[Interruption.] Elmore.

[Chris Elmore]

I never thought I would outrank my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I call Chris Bryant.

[Chris Bryant]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. You are so kind. May we have a debate on parliamentary jiggery-pokery, particularly in relation to private Members’ Bills? A splendid private Member’s Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), is going forward in 10 days’ time, but the Government cannot decide what they are going to do about it. We would like them to support it.

There is another magnificent private Member’s Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), on parliamentary constituencies. It has strong support from Members from across the House, but the Government will not allow it to have a money resolution. Yet next Tuesday we are to have a debate to approve a money resolution relating to the Overseas Electors Bill, even though the Government cannot even get enough Members to serve on the Committee.

Proxy Voting

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

That was a stunning intervention for three reasons: first, it was very good; secondly, it was delivered very well; and thirdly, I have remembered exactly what I wanted to say. The answer is yes, yes, yes, and this is what I wanted to say.

It is the case, and research is available suggesting that women coming to this place have fewer children before they get here and, if they are of child-bearing years, they have fewer children once they are here. As I have said, I am a dyed-in-the-wool small “c” conservative and I hate change. There are going to be people suggesting electronic voting. I will of course look into electronic voting, and I know it is important to some colleagues on the Committee, but I do not like it, and I will be honest about that. In case you had not gathered, Mr Speaker, I am not particularly a great fan of proxy voting, but I have to say that I am a greater fan of allowing as many women as possible to choose to come to this place, get elected to this place and, once here, prosper in this place.

That is all I want to say. This has been—we are in the early stages of it, but I imagine it will be—a good-natured debate. Once again, I thank all those colleagues who have contributed to this report with their evidence, time and good humour.

[Mr Speaker]

May I just say to the hon. Gentleman that the word “good-natured” could have been invented to describe him?

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I think that all hon. and right hon. Members will share my right hon. Friend’s desire to see beauty in the built environment, and I encourage him to continue with his campaign to ensure that the planning system properly allows for the kind of beautiful architecture that we all want to see.

[Mr Speaker]

And with his eloquence in expressing it, indeed.

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

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for when we come back from our conference recess. As we know, she has just hot-footed it back from Cabinet, where I hope she played a productive role in arranging the state of emergency arrangements for the looming no deal Brexit. It is almost unbelievable to most of us that we have got to this point, not by design but almost by typical Tory cluelessness. Would it not be in the Government’s interest for the Prime Minister simply to make a statement to the House and concede that her Chequers plans are now dead? The Mogg-ites now control large swaths of the Conservative party, and the daily militia of the party conference will almost certainly put paid to those plans. Would it not be good to get this out of the way, because there is no way that they are going to get the plans through this House?

Last week I raised the issue of the abuse of ministerial access for Scottish Conservative MPs, but all I got was a silly flippant response from the Leader of the House. This is serious stuff. Ministerial appointments are now being arranged for party political advantage. I have been watching carefully, and I have seen the meetings promoted by Scottish Conservative MPs. I have now asked for the self-same meetings, but does the Leader of the House know what has happened? Most Ministers have not even given me the courtesy of a response, and those who have done so have refused to see me. One even suggested that I should take up the matter with her in the Tea Room. The right hon. Lady is the Leader of the House, and she must have something meaningful to say about this abuse of ministerial access.

Lastly, Mr Speaker, may I wish you a good conference recess? I do not know what Speakers do during the conference recess. Perhaps there is a conference of Speakers from around the world. The House will now break so that the political hordes can head to Brighton for the Liberal Democrat conference. It is almost incredible that we stop our crucial and critical work to accommodate what are in effect annual general meetings of voluntary associations. The public are mystified by this, because we are the only Parliament in the world that breaks so that politicians can go to meetings of their parties. Will the Leader of the House get together with the shadow Leader of the House and me to design a proper recess that takes into account all parts of the United Kingdom rather than the requirements of the political parties?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Lady for raising this issue. A number of Members on both sides of the House have also raised it with me. It is utterly appalling that someone can attack a serving Member of Parliament through their children or their parents, or even through their partner or their best friend. It is absolutely unacceptable, and we have to join together in condemning it wherever it happens. I am certainly very sympathetic to her suggestion, and I am sure that you will be too, Mr Speaker.

I can tell the right hon. and learned Lady that the Government launched a consultation on 29 July on a new electoral offence which aims to crack down on threats and abuse towards those standing for election. We need to change the way in which the public perceive those who stand for public office, not least because we want to encourage more good—and, particularly, young—people from all walks of life who want to take part in our public life. How can they possibly be attracted to it when this kind of appalling behaviour goes unchecked?

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you. It is of course for the House to decide how to proceed, but in response to what the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and the Leader of the House have said, let me also underline that as far as I am concerned, that behaviour was despicable and intolerable. If the people who perpetrated it do not know that, I am afraid that tells us all we need to know about them. This simply cannot persist.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

May we have an urgent debate on the gig economy, so that we can ensure that those in long-term casual work have a route into permanent employment? During that debate, could we also recognise that that very same economy creates hundreds of thousands of job opportunities each year for students and young people, allowing them to earn money and wrap work around their studies and holidays, and providing them with the experience that carries them into permanent work? That experience is far from evil.

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important point. There is obviously a discussion to be had about the burden that that might place on smaller businesses, but, at the same time, we have to do everything possible to tackle the problem of obesity in this country. I am personally very sympathetic to him. I encourage him to seek a Back-Bench debate on the subject so that all hon. Members can share their views.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Paula Sherriff.

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker —you are very kind. I hope that everybody has taken the opportunity to visit the “Voice & Vote” exhibition in Westminster Hall. Have the Leader of the House, and perhaps you, Mr Speaker, considered whether there is any possibility that this exhibition could be moved around the country? I appreciate that it is quite large, but it would be a shame if people in, say, Dewsbury who would be unable to visit London for financial reasons could not see it. It would be great if it could be taken around our great country.

[Mr Speaker]

It is a splendid exhibition—absolutely first-class. I am sure that the Leader of the House would concur with that.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I think, Mr Speaker, that you were trying to earn the hon. Lady’s suggestion that you are extremely kind. I absolutely agree with her that that exhibition is excellent. I encourage all Members to have a look if they have not already done so, and of course to encourage their constituents who can come here to come and see it for themselves. Her suggestion of moving it around the country is a good one. She is absolutely right; it is extremely large, and definitely not for most village halls. However, I can certainly take this away and look at it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that we are about to hear a statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but is it right that half an hour ago the BBC Northern Ireland website more or less gave us the whole statement? We might as well not be hearing it from the Secretary of State. The detail of everything that she is going to say has been on the BBC Northern Ireland website; we have all read it in the past half hour.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, if that is so—the hon. Lady will appreciate that I was not in a position to know about it as I have been in the Chair since 9.30 this morning—it is extremely unsatisfactory. I must say that I have always regarded the Secretary of State as a person of unimpeachable integrity, and of real courtesy and commitment to the House. This is therefore very, very disappointing. Sometimes—we will hear from the Secretary of State in a moment as she is signalling that she wishes to contribute—Ministers themselves do not make material available but other people, supposedly acting on their behalf, do so. However, Ministers are responsible for everything that happens in, or relating to, their Departments, so I am very perturbed to hear what the hon. Lady has said. Let us hear what the Secretary of State has to say.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I was going to refer to the matter, which has just been brought to my attention, too. It is an honest mistake—it was human error—but I do apologise to the House for this. It was not intended that anything would be made public until I had made my statement to the House, and I do apologise to all Members.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Secretary of State for that. Needless to say, it must not happen again, but I thank her for her good grace.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is on a completely different matter, and it goes to the point that I raised with the Leader of the House earlier.

As you know, the sub judice rule means that, in particular when charges have been presented, as they have been in this case, we do not discuss those matters in this House because we believe in the separation of powers. We are not Russia. We have an independent judiciary. Anything said in a debate in this House that could suggest that the people of Britain have made up their mind as to the guilt of an individual person would be wholly detrimental. It would probably mean that other authorities in other countries would say that there is no chance of a fair trial in this country and therefore would refuse to extradite. I am sure, Sir, that you would use your best endeavours to ensure that any discussion in the debate strays nowhere near that, but I still urge the Leader of the House, through you, preferably to withdraw that debate, and if not, to ensure that we do not engage in any shape or form in a trial by party political Parliament.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Obviously I heard both his business question to the Leader of the House and her reply. The scheduled business has been announced, and it is not for me to seek to change that business. That said, the hon. Gentleman has raised an extremely serious and pertinent point.

The hon. Gentleman will know that it is open to the occupant of the Chair, whether I as Speaker or a Deputy Speaker acting on my behalf, to waive the sub judice rule. The Chair has some discretion in the way in which it is implemented. I certainly anticipate that if the debate goes ahead, it will be necessary to repeat what I am about to say: Members should not refer to their belief, one way or the other, as to the guilt or innocence of particular individuals. That simply must not happen. I also anticipate that between now and the debate taking place, there will be discussions between parliamentary officials and representatives of the Ministry of Justice.

I hope colleagues will understand if I leave it there and do not think it wise or necessary to say anything more, but the hon. Gentleman has raised a matter of the utmost importance, and I think we all take it, and will take it in the coming days, as seriously as it must be taken. I thank the Leader of the House and colleagues for the exchanges that we have just had.

Standards

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I shall not detain the House long, because all the relevant arguments and background material are set out in the Committee on Standards’ report and in the memorandum from the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards that accompanied it.

The investigation started under Kathryn Hudson, as the Leader of the House said, and both commissioners did a meticulous job of investigating this matter over many months. They point out that the process could have been considerably shorter if Mr Paisley had been more co-operative initially, though the current commissioner is careful to point out that in the later stages of her inquiry, Mr Paisley showed a greater sense of urgency and was proactive in putting together costings for his visits to Sri Lanka.

It is those visits that were at the heart of our inquiry. Mr Paisley made three visits to that country in 2013, all of them paid for by the Sri Lankan Government. The first two visits, in March/April and July 2013, also involved members of Mr Paisley’s family—five family members on the first visit, and three on the second visit. At that time, the threshold above which a visit had to be registered in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests was £660. It is still not firmly established how much the two earlier visits in 2013 cost, but Mr Paisley, who initially argued for a cost in the area of £20,000, now accepts a figure of £50,000. In our view and that of the commissioner, it may have been much higher. The point is that the cost massively exceeded the threshold for registration, but Mr Paisley did not register either visit.

Mr Paisley travelled again to Sri Lanka in November 2013, again at the expense of the Government there, to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Colombo. On that occasion, he travelled without his family, and he did punctually declare the financial benefits he received.

In March 2014, Mr Paisley, along with other MPs, wrote to the Prime Minister to urge the British Government to change their foreign policy towards Sri Lanka by withdrawing their stated support for a UN resolution setting up an international investigation into human rights abuses. In this letter, he did not declare any of the financial benefits he and his family had received from the Sri Lankan Government in the previous 12 months.

The commissioner found that Mr Paisley was in breach of the rules relating to registration in respect of the two earlier visits in 2013. He accepts this. She also found that he breached the rules by not making a declaration in his letter to the Prime Minister and, most seriously of all, that he breached the rule against paid advocacy in that letter by lobbying the British Government to confer an exclusive benefit on a foreign Government from which he and his family had accepted financial benefits within 12 months of having received them. Mr Paisley disputed these findings of the commissioner. On his failure to declare, the commissioner points out that his arguments are based on a misunderstanding of the rules. We share the commissioner’s view, and we concluded that Mr Paisley was in breach of the rules of declaration.

On paid advocacy, the situation is slightly more complicated, but we and the commissioner both came to a clear decision. Mr Paisley argues that he did not breach the paid advocacy rule on two grounds. The first is that the rule, as it stood in 2014, prohibits advocacy that seeks to confer benefit exclusively on a body outside Parliament from which Members have received a financial benefit. Mr Paisley claims that his letter to the Prime Minister was not seeking to confer a benefit exclusively upon Sri Lanka in that the British Government stood to benefit too because they

“would not have had to pay for the internationalisation of the internal political affairs of another country through the auspices of the UN.”

We were not persuaded by this argument. We point out that, in diplomatic terms, the UK would arguably have suffered at least as much as it gained by withdrawing its publicly announced support from an initiative aimed at promoting international human rights observance. In financial terms, Mr Paisley supplied no evidence to support his view that this shift in policy would have saved money for the UK Government. We think that it is entirely reasonable to interpret his letter to the Prime Minister as seeking to confer a benefit exclusively on the Sri Lankan Government.

Mr Paisley’s other argument arises from an apparent inconsistency in the guidance provided in 2014 on the paid advocacy rule. The Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests drew our attention to this matter, which had not been raised in the commissioner’s original memorandum. We thought it only fair to share the information with Mr Paisley, and offer him the opportunity to submit further evidence addressing this point. He has done so, and we have carefully considered it.

I should mention that we and the commissioner have been careful throughout this investigation to assess Mr Paisley’s conduct against the rules and the guidance that actually applied back in 2013 and 2014, taking no account of any subsequent modifications that are not relevant to the case. Although we acknowledge that there was indeed inconsistent guidance in 2014—the House has subsequently put that right—we are clear that this does not exonerate Mr Paisley from breaching the paid advocacy rule. We set out our reasons in paragraph 27 of the report, but I will mention just the first reason because it is decisive in itself. Even if one accepts Mr Paisley’s interpretation of the rule, rather than that of successive commissioners, it would only exempt Mr Paisley’s own visit to Sri Lanka from the application of the rule; it would not exempt those of his family, which represent a significant financial benefit received by Mr Paisley.

We were therefore in no doubt that the commissioner was right to find that Mr Paisley breached the rules in respect of registration, declaration and paid advocacy. In assessing a suitable sanction, we considered what might be taken to be mitigating and aggravating factors. Mitigating factors are Mr Paisley’s apology for failing to register, his recent activity in analysing the likely costs of the visit, and his acceptance that he needed a “far greater understanding” of the rules. Aggravating factors are the scale of the unregistered, undeclared hospitality received by him and his family, grounds for thinking that the failures to register were, to use the commissioner’s words, “not inadvertent”, and his delays in dealing with the commissioner in the early stages of her inquiry.

Taking these factors into account, we concluded that Mr Paisley had committed serious misconduct, and that his actions

“were of a nature to bring the House of Commons into disrepute”,

which is a further breach of the code of conduct. Because we regard this as an especially serious case, we have recommended that Mr Paisley be suspended from the service of the House for a period of 30 sitting days, starting on 4 September 2018.

The motion before the House today makes separate provision for the withdrawal of Mr Paisley’s salary, and I should say a word or two by way of explanation about that. The intention of the Committee was that Mr Paisley should be suspended from the service of the House for 30 days, and that he should forfeit his parliamentary salary for an equivalent period—that is, also 30 days. However, I have been advised that the effect of simply suspending him for 30 sitting days without making separate provision for his salary is likely to be that he will automatically forfeit that salary for a period longer than 30 days, because of the inclusion of non-sitting days in the overall period of suspension. That was not the Committee’s intention. In retrospect, we could have been clearer about that in the wording of our report. I am therefore grateful to the Leader of the House for having acceded to my request to table today’s motion in a form that makes clear the Committee’s intention and avoids any ambiguity over the period of time for which Mr Paisley’s salary will be withdrawn.

We also recommend that Mr Paisley should register the benefits he received from the Sri Lankan government, which will be italicised in the Register to indicate that they are a late entry.

Finally, I should mention that the lay members of the Committee played a full and active part in the drawing up of the Committee’s report, which they are in full agreement with.

Question put and agreed to.

[Mr Speaker]

The House has agreed to the motion in the name of the Leader of the House to suspend the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) for 30 sitting days. Under the terms of section 5 of the Recall of MPs Act 2015, I am now required to write to the relevant electoral officer, informing him or her that a Member has met one of the conditions that make the Member subject to a recall petition under that Act, namely that, following a report from the Committee on Standards in relation to the MP, the House of Commons has ordered the suspension of the Member from the service of the House for a period of 10 sitting days or more.

Any recall petition will be administered in accordance with the provisions of the Act by that electoral officer. For those who take a keen interest in these matters—I am partly taking the time to state all this because it is the first occasion upon which I have been required so to act—I would add that the electoral officer has 10 working days to set up and open the petition for signature, or longer if it is not practicable to do it within that time. If the petition achieves the necessary number of signatures—at least 10% of the number of eligible registered electors in that constituency—in the specified period of six weeks, the electoral officer notifies me and the seat is made vacant from the date of that notification.

I hope that explanation is helpful to the House. This is a regrettable state of affairs, but I thank the Leader of the House for what she said in moving the motion and I would like to thank the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron), the Chair of the Standards Committee, for briefing the House in the way that he has done.

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 19th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

He certainly must beehive himself, at all times.

Let me say again to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) that I look forward to visiting the great exhibition of the north. I think that he will have received my letter informing him that I shall be in his constituency next week and that I look forward to it very much.

[Mr Speaker]

The Leader of the House will be pleased to know that she is right: the list of future business publicly declared has not yet caught up with reality, as both the advice of the Clerks and the enthusiastic nodding of the officials’ heads alike testify.

[Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)]

A few weeks ago, the Government announced that they were likely over the summer to consult on changes to the planning process for shale gas and fracking. There is a shale gas application in my constituency, and this is of concern to a number of residents in my part of the world. Will the Minister consider giving Government time for a debate on shale gas and, in particular, proposed changes to permitted development rights?

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

There is no point of order now.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The words of the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) stand for themselves; it is absolutely abhorrent for him to be calling me out in particular when I came to the Dispatch Box yesterday with exactly the regret and sorrow he is now falsely calling for. It is a deep regret to me that that breaking of the pair happened in error. I assured the House yesterday that it was an error that the Chief Whip and the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), had both apologised for.

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there were three pairs on Tuesday. I myself was one of them; I did not receive any call from anyone telling me to vote. I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that, because he is calling me something that is not acceptable parliamentary language. I have made absolutely clear my personal commitment to resolving this issue so that new parents can spend time with their new babies uninterrupted. What happened was an error that has been copiously and profusely apologised for, and the hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There are strong feelings on this matter, and I have heard very clearly what the Leader of the House has said by way of her account. I know that she will not, however, cavil, or argue with me, when I say that I am the arbiter of what is parliamentary language, and no unparliamentary language has been used; I am clear about that and the Clerk is very clear about that. The hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) has obviously irritated the right hon. Lady, but he used the word “inadvertently”. There is no breach of order; nothing disorderly whatsoever has happened. We do need to be clear about that.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will know from her own constituency experience the problems that people affected by HS2 have in selling their property and not getting a quick resolution. There is no good resolution to this, and that applies even more to my constituents who are affected by the roadworks on the M6 and cannot get anyone to buy their property, the value of which has fallen precipitately as a result of the disturbance. When people are forced into a situation of being unable to sell their properties because Government action—whether in relation to road, rail, airports or anything else—causes the value of the property to plummet, can we ensure that there is justice for them and that they can sell their property at market value or get the appropriate compensation?

Proxy Voting

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 18th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before I call other Members—I do want to hear others— in thanking the Leader of the House for what she said, I want to make the point, as much for wider public knowledge as anything else, that we know that the Procedure Committee looked at this matter and that many people gave evidence to the Committee, myself included, and I made it clear that I was personally perfectly happy with the idea of a proxy voting system in respect of baby leave in particular and that I would be happy to play my part in the operation of such a system.

For what it is worth, I think it is qualitatively in a different category from other requests for proxy voting, but that is a matter for the House to decide. The only other thing I would like to say, which is not directed at any one individual at all, is that I detect in the House and in representations made privately to me a very strong sense not merely that we should debate the issue again soon but that we should decide the issue and, if a change is agreed on, give effect to it. Obviously, if a change is not agreed on, that does not arise, but I think that there is concern about a potentially endless debate, which I feel absolutely sure the Leader of the House would not want and which I would not want. With good will, perhaps, and I think I speak for people on both sides of the argument, we can resolve the matter. I am sure that people would not want endless procrastination.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I thank the Leader of the House for her response and congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on his urgent question about this important issue. I thank you, too, Mr Speaker, for granting it.

Last night’s events do not reflect well on this House; I am sure the whole House agrees. It is time that we ensure that this is a modern workplace with modern employment practices. The Leader of the House and I had both decided on 5 July that we would not give closing speeches so that we could debate proxy voting, but she has said that she wants the debate in September. Could she arrange for the debate to take place next week, as we have just a general debate? There is time to discuss that.

Last night shows why the Government must urgently introduce proxy voting for those on baby leave. The Prime Minister’s answer earlier to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) was simply not good enough. Consultation by this Government is always code for delay and obfuscation. Members of the Procedure Committee have taken evidence from you, Mr Speaker, and from all of us, and they have produced a report that we could debate immediately. I know that the Leader of the House wants urgently to find a way forward. Does she agree that proxy voting for those on baby leave could be introduced today without the need for debate through public agreement by all parties to nod through those on baby leave for every Division? We could ensure that those voting by such means were denoted by a “P”, or, to make it really up to date—and I hope Hansard have this—a baby emoji, giving full transparency to the public. Will she agree to meet me today to discuss this?

It is vital that we are a modern workplace and that those on baby leave can have their vote recorded and take part in our proceedings as they want to and as they are elected to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

As I have said, I will bring forward this debate at the earliest opportunity. I absolutely agree that we need to resolve this issue, but I gently say to the hon. Gentleman again, as I often do, that he has a perfect opportunity in the Lobby to come and talk to Government Ministers and to promote how he wants to improve the plight of Scotland. All he has to do is join us in our Lobby to be able to do that.

[Mr Speaker]

I think I can say in a non-partisan spirit that the Leader of the House is an optimist.

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, I sat on your diversity and inclusion panel, and we discussed this issue at some length. We identified that it is far more complex an issue than just baby leave, as important as that is. For example, as we speak, I understand that the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill is being concluded. That would give two weeks paid leave for those who lose a child. This is a complex issue, so I very much welcome that my right hon. Friend is bringing forward the debate, but does she agree that such a complex issue needs to be debated in full by all Members of the House?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman is often in this place when I am, and I completely agree with him that we need to continue to listen to people. We need to show people the utmost respect, which I certainly always try to do, and I know that he does, too. My colleagues on the Whips’ Bench are delighted to hear that he considers them to be his friends. I am always very grateful to hear his thoughts on these issues.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, they will be pleased to know they have some.

[Mrs Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her very gracious statement and I am pleased that the apology given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) has been accepted by Liberal Democrat Members. As someone who was on maternity leave when the general election was called last year, this issue is very close to my heart. It did make me seriously consider whether this is something that I could do with a six-month-old baby. However, given the over 2,000 successful pairs that we have had in this Parliament, does the Leader of the House agree that we should not dismiss the entire pairing system because of one mistake?

Business of the House

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That, at this day’s sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Andrea Leadsom relating to European Statutory Instruments Committee, Liaison Committee, Positions for which additional salaries are payable for the purposes of section 4A(2) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 and Presentation of documents under paragraph 3(3)(b) or 17(3)(b) of schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 not later than one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order; such questions shall include the questions on any amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.

I first put on record my sincere thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and to the Procedure Committee for their careful consideration of the best way to ensure effective scrutiny of Brexit delegated legislation. There has never been a more crucial time for secondary legislation, and the Government are committed to providing the maximum consideration of it to enable our smooth exit from the EU.

The Procedure Committee’s report sets out detailed proposals to ensure the effective scrutiny of delegated legislation under—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Clerk has swivelled round to advise me. I do not wish to be unkind or unhelpful to the Leader of the House, but I think that she has slightly jumped the gun in that she has got on to the substantive matter, which in fact we have not yet reached. I think that at this stage we just need to have the verdict of the House on the business of the House motion. I think I have interpreted the Clerk correctly. We will come back to the Leader of the House and she will continue her oration momentarily.

Question put and agreed to.