17/07/2017 House of Commons

Download Subtitles




Live coverage of the day's proceedings in the House of Commons including an urgent question on Saudi Arabia and emergency debate on the scheduling of parliamentary business.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 17/07/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



dealing with the queries he raised. Canny Secretary of State tell me


what he will do to ensure that Bradford Council build on the


Brownfield sites it has identified before it starts concreting over and


building on greenfield sites in the green belt in my constituency? My


honourable friend makes a very important point, and as we have made


clear any Housing white paper, we expect Brownfield sites to always


been a priority to meet our housing need, and that is what I would


expect to see from Bradford. Is it entirely wisely minister of the


Northern Powerhouse to come across the Pennines from his Lancashire


constituency and tell the people of Yorkshire that they could not have


full Yorkshire demolition? Are these decisions are best made in God 's


own county, not in Whitehall, and not unlike a job and it's very


different geography. As a proud Lancastrian, it is not for me nor is


it for Government to tell Yorkshire what demolition deal it should have.


However, I would gently point out that in 2015, Bardsley, Doncaster,


rather and Sheffield asked for powers from Government, we gave them


to them. They asked the new money from Government, we gave it to them.


They also have an election next May, we gave it to them. When will the


people of South Yorkshire learn to take yes for an answer? Kettering


Borough Council, of which I am a member, provide specialist Housing


advice to those in financial difficulties, to prevent


homelessness in the first place and is working closely with local


housing associations to bring forward a recognisable of homes for


social rate. Isn't that exactly the right approach? I commend the work


that Kettering Borough Council are doing, in my experience where we are


seeing local authorities prevent homelessness, they are doing very


much those type of things, particularly in terms of helping


people deal with the financial challenges, things like budgeting,


and it is certainly good here that Kettering are also bringing forward


a significant number of affordable homes that residents can benefit


from. Goodes we heard from the minister earlier about causing


communities, Blackall and Horden in my constituency are also former


coalfield communities that have suffered terminal levels of


underinvestment says those bits where close. Under the previous Tory


Government. Will be missed the meet with me to see what can be done? It


isn't just for Government has bought our coastal communities, it would


encourage all members across this House to visit the fantastic great


British coastline. I will of course happily meet with the honourable


member and representatives from his constituency to work out what more


the fund can do for him. In magical constituency, they are drying up


their local plan, however there are concerns that the Greater Manchester


Police will override it. What assurances can he get neighbourhood


forums that their plans will be appropriately considered? As the


Secretary of State reiterated, we made a commitment to protecting the


green belt in the Housing white paper, and I cannot comment


specifically on the planet which he talks about, but I would emphasise


the PlanMaker is the consult with the community, especially


neighbourhood forums, and once that has been brought in force, it is


part of the statutory development plan of an area. I will come to


points of order, because I think there are a number today relating to


one matter, and it seems to me to contain a degree of urgency. I will


treat it very soon. Just before I do, I have a short statement myself


to make. On Thursday the 13th of July, the text colleagues of the


European Union withdrawal Bill was available through eight week, before


the Bill was presented in the House. Points of order will raised about


the Bill being available online for it was available to members. An


immediate investigation was carried out. A flaw in the publishing


process within the House of Commons service meant that the Bill text was


inadvertently available on a live Parliamentary web server before the


Bill was presented. A link to the text was circulated on social media,


just before 11am. Immediate action has been taken to amend the


publishing process, to ensure that this cannot happen again. No one


outside the House of Commons service and there's any responsibility for


this mistake. This was a serious incident, and I have been assured


that the required changes have been made to strengthen the Bill


publishing arrangements. I hope that that has -- as wages the concern of


honourable and Right Honourable members. -- as wages. The analysis


due to be made by the Transport Secretary today, which will affect


millions of people. He began back his consultation with an oral


statement last November and there had been an expectation that they


would announce his final decisions today with an oral statement, and


parts of the media were briefed to that effect. All the indicators are


now that the news will be sneaked out in a written statement any time


now. This is a gross discourtesy and add insult to injury for my


constituents, so I would seek your advice about how we can get the


Transport Secretary to come to the House and show some accountability


on this issue. As others relate the same subject, I think I will take


them or a number of them and then respond. I would seek your advice,


today the Government has announced and been all over the airwaves, a


?6.6 billion worth of contracts on HS two, and it would seem to me that


when such a large amount of taxpayers money is being spent, that


the minister should come to the House and make the statement. I


appreciate the urgent question and statement on business, that is


equally important, but I wonder whether you could extend the setting


of this House and allow others to have a statement from the minister,


because in the light of what has happened with contractors before, CH


do them, having withdrawn from a ?70 million contract, because of a lack


of due diligence, and conflict of interest, we need to look at these


contractors, because one contractor has major project overruns and has


written of millions of pounds, two contractors have pulled out of other


public service contracts, and one is having financial problems and


restructuring. I would seek a statement will stop a point of order


from Angela Smith. I would add that it is not just his constituents but


those across Yorkshire and beyond. We are impacted upon by the


decision. Not only that, this is the latest in a long line of actions by


the Government which are demonstrating an unwillingness to


make itself available to the scrutiny of the people. I wonder


what you can do to improve their situation and encourage the


Government to stand up to do its job properly. Further to that point, or


the order paper today, we have the high-speed rail West Midlands Bell,


and indeed faddy would in Staffordshire is in my constituency


which is written on the order paper. I have two farms on which there is


going to be quarrying, it was just announced, and this was even before


we have had first reading. I got elderly residents who are being told


that their homes I go to be taken away from them. We have already


heard from my right honourable friend about cost overruns. I too


sadly think it is outrageous that this major item of public


expenditure, which is affecting my constituents and those of many


others, is not being reflected by a statement here today. I am saving


the honourable gentleman, he is too precious to waste. I entirely


support the point of order raised by my right honourable friend from


Doncaster North. This is a major announcement affecting my


constituency and many others. It is not then HS two recommendation, it


is a Government decision on a previous recommendation. We can ask


for an urgent question tomorrow, by that time they will be a public


debate on it. This House should have the first opportunity to debate this


matter. Many of my constituents have taken part in the consultation in


relation to the re-routing of HS two over many months now. We do not know


if their voices have been heard. There has been no public publication


of the causal station. This may wreck over 100 homes are my


constituency as many jobs in different employers, and I think it


is outrageous that my constituents are being treated at with contempt


by ministers were not prepared to come into the House and tell us what


they have spent all this money on and took ontological decisions about


this as opposed to hiding behind a written statement we think at some


time today. As you know, because you have allocated a debate for my two


honourable and Right honourable friend is already, and you know


because you have heard say it and I have said and in particular, it is


possible ?80 billion scheme which it probably will be around that figure,


means that a lot of houses in my constituency I going to be


demolished and rose I going to go straight through a development that


is only just taken place, that in Derbyshire they will be a slow


track, dawdling its weight in Sheffield, and beyond, and then a


fast-track that goes to Meadowhall. This is a very important matter. It


should be debated at length. Because it is going to cost the taxpayer a


small fortune, and as you know, the Sheffield line could have


electrification all the way to London and get to London a lot


quicker for a lot less money. This is an outrage. That is why I raised


the matter along with my honourable friends today.


I am grateful for the points of order. What I say is my


understanding is that the written ministerial statement has now been


issued. There was speculation as to when it would be. I am advised that


it has been. Secondly, I am not in a position to require a minister to


come to the house today to make a statement, however, it is


comparatively unusual for members on both sides of the house in unison to


raise such a concern and to make to all intents and purposes and exactly


similar request that there should be. I will come to the honourable


gentleman. In the circumstances, the Secretary of State is bound to hear


of these concerns within a matter of minutes and, if the right honourable


gentleman wanted to come to the house today to make a statement, I


would certainly be very happy to facilitate him. My last observation


would be that I think the honourable gentleman for Sheffield South East,


former member for Sheffield, said that an urgent question could be


applied for tomorrow, but by then all sorts of briefing would have


taken place. I am afraid it is not within the power of the Speaker to


reverse time. I cannot do anything about that. I can only deal with


this situation as it evolves. But what I would say is that if no


statement is forthcoming from the minister it would be perfectly open


to members to do their best to secure Parliamentary time and


attention tomorrow and it may be that such an exploration would take


place at some length, at some length, that it may be that faced


with that scenario, a minister might think it prudent and judicious to


anticipate the difficulty and to offer the statement today instead. I


do not know, we shall have to C, but I am on the side of the house in


wanting ministers to be accountable to it. That seems pretty clear to


me. I beg your pardon. Further to that point of order, I am asking


whether there has been discussion between you and the Secretary of


State as to whether these further reports and documents, which are


scheduled to be published today, should have been delayed until the


Secretary of State was before the house tomorrow, if at all possible?


No, is the short answer. There has been no such discussions and it


would not automatically be expected that there should be, but I can


simply say to the honourable gentleman, I have not been advised


of any revised plans. So we will leave it there for now. Point of


order. On the 27th of June I put a Parliamentary question to the


government asking when they would release the report on product


safety. I'm sure you agree that given the situation we find


ourselves in particular after the Grenfell Tower disaster, it is


crucial that house is kept up-to-date with progress of the


report. I received a response and answer would be prepared and sent in


due course. By the 12th of July to put another Parliamentary question


for today. Can I ask you kindly to ensure the government make their


response known as a matter of urgency? What I would say is it is


highly undesirable for questions that have been tabled in good faith


and orderly manner, some time before the recess, not to receive an answer


by the time of the recess. This is not some new development articulated


at this moment by me from the chair, it is a long established and


respected practice that ministers to put it bluntly try to clear the


backlog, and it is customarily expected that the Leader of the


House would be a chaser after progress on such matters and I would


very much hope the honourable lady will have a reply, a substantive


reply, to her written question or questions, before this House rises


for the summer recess. It seems a matter of proper procedure and


courtesy from one colleague to another. Point of order. The report


referred to, a working group was set up following a serious fire in my


constituency. We were promised that report before Christmas last year


and that is what we are still waiting for. If we do not get that


this week and a clear statement from the government, we will be waiting


in the case of my constituents and grand full until the autumn and the


urgency cannot go on marked by the minister and anything you continue


to assist, I would be most grateful. The honourable gentleman has


transmitted his concerns through me to the government, which will


quickly get to hear the honourable gentleman is on the war path on the


matter and that might yield a positive outcome over the next 48,


72 hours and it is up to the honourable gentleman to judge


whether having heard or not heard anything from ministers, he wishes


to find ways of trying to secure attention to the issue on the floor


of the house before we rise for the summer recess. Point of order. I


would have given notice but I thought we were doing points of


order later. Last week after meeting with trade union representatives


from Rolls-Royce outside Bristol, I tried to table a written question


asking if the government was seeking to stay in the European Aviation


Safety Agency post Brexit. My question was rejected on the grounds


a similar question was asked in January and nothing has changed and


that questioned said that we cannot pre-empt negotiations. I would like


clarity today on whether and how will we know nothing has changed if


we are not allowed to table questions, but also I have been told


I cannot ask the question again until the end of the Brexit


negotiations, and that seems ludicrous. It strikes me as a rum


business and I would hope it would be possible for the honourable lady


to receive some satisfaction. My strong advice is she should take the


short journey from here to the table office and seek advice, because I am


sure it will be possible to achieve a satisfactory outcome and forgive


me making this point, again, but I do make it again, that the


honourable lady effectively refers to being denied on grounds of


repetition. Repetition is not a novel phenomenon in the House of


Commons. I think we will leave it there for now. We come to the urgent


question for which the honourable gentleman has been patiently


waiting. Mr Tom Brake. To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and


Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on what steps are being


taken to intervene in the anticipated execution of 14 people


in Saudi Arabia. Minister of State. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the


right honourable gentleman for his question. Media reporting has


suggested 14 men could face the death penalty in Saudi Arabia for


attending protests in an Eastern province in 2012. We are looking


into details and reports, including seeking urgent parity with the Saudi


authorities there and in London. I have been in contact with the


ambassador to for Saudi Arabia who will come back with information when


he has it. We regularly make this cover's opposition to the death


penalty clear, we are firmly opposed, and raise concerns at all


levels and all opportunities and they are aware of our stance over


their human rights in this position is a matter of public record. The


Prime Minister raise this during her visit in April this year. I thank


the minister. Evidence points to Saudi Arabia taking final steps


before executing up to 14 people, including at least two who were


juveniles at the time of the alleged offences and convicted on the


strength of confessions through the use of torture. Our Prime Minister


has highlighted the long-term relationship with Saudi Arabia and


has said rather than standing on the sidelines and sniping it is


important to talk about our interests and raise difficult issues


when we feel necessary. I am sure the Prime Minister and minister


would agree 14 executions are such a difficult issue and I am pleased it


has been raised urgently with the Saudi government. I would like to


ask, will the minister asked the Prime Minister to call on Saudi King


Salman and the crown prince to stop the executions, especially


juveniles? From going ahead. If the executions of juveniles and others


arrested in relation to allege protest activity go ahead, will be


UK commit to freezing and reviewing any criminal justice systems that


could contribute to the arrest of protesters and dissidents in Saudi


Arabia and what further steps will the government take to condemn Saudi


Arabia's use of the death penalty, especially in the case of people


with disabilities, and juveniles. Mr Speaker, our Prime Minister is


promoting the UK as a global nation, how she responds to the threat of


summary executions by a partner and close ally will determine what kind


of global nation she intends the United Kingdom to be, a global


champion of human rights or apologist for human rights abusers.


Thank you. Let me deal with some of the issues raised. In relation to


the death penalty and death penalty in relation to juveniles, the UK


Government opposes the death penalty in all circumstances and in every


country including Saudi Arabia, especially for crimes other than the


most serious, and the juveniles, in line with standards set out in the


EU guidelines on the death penalty. And the provisions of the


international covenant on civil and political rights and the Arab


Charter. A law has been proposed to King Salman that codify is the age


of majority at 18 and the death penalty should not be given to


minors. The cases he raised towards the end of his remarks, are cases


that have been raised specifically by the United Kingdom and in each


case we have received assurances that minors would not be executed.


In relation to the general relationship with Saudi Arabia, our


starting point for engagement on human rights with all countries is


based on what is practical realistic and achievable and we will always be


ready to speak out as a matter of principle. Ministers discuss human


rights and raise concerns with the Saudi Arabia government and we have


a balanced relationship with Saudi Arabia and using gauge meant to


encourage reform. This is a society going through a process of reform,


heading towards fish in 2030, which the new crown prince has laid out as


a pattern for Saudi Arabia. Women's rights of changing with the addition


of women to the council and it is a process that does not go at our pace


but at other places. We make sure human rights of a key part of every


conversation senior colleagues have and will certainly be the case


should it be necessary to intervene, should any minors be in the position


described. As indicated, we have sketchy reports of this and that is


why we are doing more and I will write to the right honourable


gentleman when I received more detailed information so he has it


available. The chair of the foreign affairs Select Committee. We have


heard over the years the government talk about the influence it has had


over the actions of the Saudi government in terms of capital


offences. I would be grateful if the minister could give examples of how


that has paid off because on days like this, it leaves questions to be


answered. Can I congratulate my honourable friend on his election to


the office of chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, it is


important office, well held by his predecessor, to whom we would pay


tribute. These are difficult job is done by colleagues at my right


honourable friend did it critically well. We are pleased to see the


honourable gentleman in his place. It is difficult to prove a negative.


The authorities with which we deal in Saudi Arabia are not necessarily


in a position to make their judicial decisions dependent on external


pressure. Nor would we be in their case. We know that a number of


allegations are made about possible executions of minors and then they


do not happen, but whether or not it would be specifically laid at the


door of any representation, we would not necessarily know. I can assure


him and the house that these representations are regularly made


into a changing society and judicial processes Saudi Arabia, which must


be theirs are not ours. Her thanks for granting this urgent


question today. I would also like to thank the honourable member for


Carshalton and Warrington for bringing such an important matter to


the House, and for speaking so eloquently on the subject. I am sure


that all members present here today share my concern about these


impending executions. Saudi Arabia is one of the world's prolific


executioners and the death penalty is increasingly being used as a


punishment for nonviolent acts. Indeed, in January 20 16th the Saudi


authorities executed 47 men in a single day for allegedly is


offences. And just last Monday, six men aware killed. It is becoming


clear that these executions are being used not only has a form of


draconian punishment, but as a tool to suppress political opposition. To


fight sectarian religious battles against the Shia minority, and


antagonise their religious rivals any process. It is just over six


years since the formal Foreign Secretary William Hague declared


that there would be no downgrading of human rights under this


Government. Pursuing the foreign policy with a conscience, was, he


argued, in our long-term and light in the national interest. It is


striking how far the party opposite have strayed from this commitment.


When it comes to our relationship with Saudi Arabia, it would appear


that human rights concerns are now of secondary importance to trade.


This Government has treated human rights as an inconvenient


embarrassment, rather than a cause for serious concern. Their


reluctance to champion the values of human rights, not only runs counter


to who we are as a country but risks everything our international


standing just when we need it most. My party's position on this matter


is clear. These 14 executions including two juveniles and one


disabled man, must not take place. I call upon the Government to use


their influence, to stand up and human rights, and unreservedly


condemn these planned executions. . The body minister response, I say


this and all kindness to the honourable lady, the fluency of her


delivery was unfortunately not matched by any conformity with the


expected procedure for the opposing of an urgent question. I allowed her


to continue, but for future reference, this is not directed only


at the honourable lady but wisely, with an urgent question, what is


required is a brief sentence or two, a response to what the minister has


said followed by a series of questions. It is not an occasion for


the setting howls of an alternative party position. It is not a debate.


It maybe well have been good if the honourable lady... Ever other


inappropriate way. It was very good. It may well have been, but


unfortunately it was not very good at complying with the procedure. So


I see it good-naturedly to the good that I honourable lady, we really


must encourage compliance with the required procedure in the future. I


would like the minister very briefly to respond, 30 seconds will suffice,


and then we'll move on questioning. I thank the honourable lady. I got


the gist of the points that you wanted to make. Saudi Arabia remains


a Commonwealth office human rights priority country particular because


the use of the death penalty, eight woman's right, restriction of


freedom of expression, no aspect of our commercial relationship prevents


ours from speaking frankly and openly to them about human rights,


we will not pursue trade to the exclusion of human rights, they can


be and they are complimentary. The UK will continue to adhere to that.


I know the minister will is depressing have regularly the death


penalty is carried out, not just in Saudi Arabia but in its nearby


neighbour Iran which has also carried out dozens this year, given


the small likelihood that you might persuade them to abolish it, would


agree it is best to focus on getting them to adopt the most basic of


standards, and not just estimating people for crimes committed whilst


juveniles. I think I concur with all the points he has made, we will just


leave it at that. The death penalty for the little


protest is something that horrifies any Democrat, with that in mind we


have serious concerns that would not the is using its powers. Can he


tells that the Prime Minister has raised this issue, and he confirmed


that with us, was she satisfied by the response, and if she was not,


what further action is being taken? The Prime Minister will continue to


raise concerns as long as the UK have them. If we want to move to a


position which would satisfy all about, I suspect that Saudi Arabia


has not yet in there, accordingly the primers were continue to raise


concerns if you believe that is justified. Can he confirm again that


the Government opposes and pop up or is the death penalty in all


circumstances, and in every country including Saudi Arabia? But does he


share my concern that the death penalty is enshrined in Islamic


sharia law, the law of Saudi Arabia? Can he share with and with what


force he is making his position known to his counterparts in Saudi


Arabia? I can only repeat what I have said before. The UK's


opposition to the death penalty, carrying it to buy votes in this


House, and here is to international conventions, makes that very clear.


But not everyone is the same. The UK cannot unilaterally change the law,


but we can and will stand up for the right we believe are correct and


make that clear no matter what country is involved from around the


United States to Saudi Arabia. We are constantly being told by the


party opposite that we share values in common with Saudi Arabia. What


are they? They are not value... Concerning human rights, they are


not values of international law, what are these values that we could


possibly share with Saudi Arabia, when they are prepared to crucify


someone and use the death penalty against minors? In response to the


honourable lady asking for things which we may share in common, we


should not ignore Saudi Arabia's important contribution to regional


stability. It has had its own people experience is as the victim of


numerous attacks, and the collaboration Saudi Arabia has


potentially saved British lives, so there are areas where our interests


work together in the interests of the UK. But it is not universal.


Giving the fact that maybe at last we are no longer in Imperial Parma


and able to send a gunboat to enforce other view of the world,


would he confirm that in his experience, and it is considerable


within the Foreign Office, the quiet conversation, making our case and


setting it out, is far more likely to be effective than shouting at


people across...? I thank him for his question. Different approaches


have different impact. It certainly would not be right for people to be


silent on things that they think are important and Reagan publicly, but


it is also true that some of the quiet conversations with state over


a period of time effect change. This is also due to consular cases as


well as the high profile death penalty cases. He is right, both


approaches can have an impact, but sometimes they don't. In his


communications with the Saudi authorities, will he establish if


the reports are correct that beyond this group there are others who are


currently facing similar charges, including juveniles again? I will


make what enquiries I can relation to this, certainly from the media


reports we have it would be important to find out whether any


juveniles are involved, normally NGOs in the west are quite good at


finding this out and reporting this information and the UK has acted


upon those in the past. Certainly we will look further information and


gather as much as I can. What impact does the minister believed the 38%


cut to the Foreign Office will present in a challenge in dealing


effectively with human rights, beat and Saudi Arabia or where ever it


is? All aspects of Government must pay attention to the need for


financial probity, but the Foreign Commonwealth Office has made sure


that you meant rights has been a key part of our work, certainly for as


many years as I had been there, which is now spanning a view, and


human rights will remain a key part of desk work here and the work


abroad. Among numerous others, my understanding of the two juveniles


at risk of execution where charter the Saudi Arabia's anti-cyber crime


laws, can he confirm or deny that and we assure the House that any


cyber security assistance provided by the UK to Saudi Arabia has not


been used to facilitate charges which lead to the death penalty? I


don't have the detailed information he is asking for, and I will see to


that. I'm also seek reassurances in relation to the collaborative work


done on cyber security, which is there to protect the UK and common


interest rather than anything else, but I will need further information


before I can apply, but I will write to him. Can the confirm to me that


I'm a relationship with Saudi Arabia enable us to raise our concerns


about human rights, but also that those others in this House should


appreciate that the Government of Saudi Arabia is taking steps to


improve its actions on human rights and particularly to improve the


opportunities and rights for women in the societies in Saudi Arabia? My


honourable friend is absolute right. There is a vision of Saudi Arabia as


with a number of states in the area, which is fixed in peoples minds


which does always confirm that I can form to reality. Progress on some of


these state is extremely slow, they are conservative, and sometimes


their leaders are ahead of where opinion and religious opinion is. It


is a difficult process, but she is right, and objectively it can be


seen that women's position has improved in relation to access to


the council and beyond, and is more to come. The 100,000 people educated


abroad by the previous King Solomon occluded women who were educated in


the west in the US, they were not intended to return to a Saudi Arabia


which is going to be unchanging. I'm sure the whips mean well when


advising on these matters, but they often get the timing a bit wrong.


You should remain in your seat instead of beating around the


chamber, because a weapon suddenly was to relate a piece of


information. No doubt it is very well-intentioned but misguided. In


response to the recent spate of executions, Amnesty International


has renewed used as calls on the Saudi Arabian authorities to


immediately establish a moratorium on all executions. A first step was


abolition of the death penalty. Can he led his support to Amnesty's


calls? As we have an absolute opposition to the death penalty in


any circumstances, a moratorium is essentially immaterial because we


want to see the death penalty stopped everywhere. I hear what he


is saying about talking and advising and asking questions of the Saudi


Government, but shouldn't the Government stop pussyfooting around


on this matter and the man that these executions do not go ahead,


for crimes which are just protesting, innocently, in a fair


society? I understand the force with which the honourable gentleman


speaks. It is difficult to convey it to colleagues in the House all the


time exactly what the ambassador dance or the Prime Minister would do


any conversations that they have two convey in a different form exactly


the same degree of force and concern which he does so eloquently. How far


does the Government really believe that the UK's influence extends


across Saudi Arabia? If the UK Governmented supposedly rich cannot


stop them from beheading its citizens, why does it leave it is


appropriate for the UK to give the sale of arms to that country? It is


impossible to get a simple answer to the question of how much influence


once they exert upon another. I would point a long-standing


relationship Saudi Arabia, long-standing relationship attempted


security and intelligence matters which has acted in our interest in


the safety of time. It is not the those outside to take credit for


internal changes. All I would say is I believe the continued dialogue


with the state that we've known for a long time, but is still relatively


new and coming to terms with the Is the execution in violation of not


only international law but Saudi domestic law? Whatever the longer


term relationship, minors have been executed and there are many on death


row. Could he say what representation he is making today or


tomorrow and if he is in doubt about who is at risk and he talked to


Reprieve about that? I reiterate the point made in relation to the death


penalty and particularly in the case of minors, and those cases we


reference specifically, as we have done in a number of cases raised by


the right honourable gentleman when he spoke. I am gaining more


information about the matters referred to today and if they


contain minors, specific representations will be made. Points


of order normally come after statements. I made an exception for


particular matters earlier. Is this because he wants to go off to


another commitment, or is it urgent for the house now? I would not


presume to judge its urgency, I will leave that to the chair. There


appears to be confusion which I would not want to have and I know my


honourable friend for mid Kent is of a like mind. Last week when we had


the opportunity to question a government earnest about Saudi


Arabia, I conferred with one of the clerks at the desk to find out


whether, having been on a visit to Saudi Arabia, this was an interest


to be declared. The advice given by the clerk was that it was up to the


individual member, but as it was raising a question, rather than


instigating an early day motion or debate or giving a long speech on


our relations with Saudi Arabia, there was no interest to declare. I


understand that might have changed today. I would not have wanted to


mislead their house in anyway. I would value a clarification on


whether we need to declare an interest when merely asking a


question of a government minister. As far as I'm aware, nothing has


changed today and although the honourable gentleman may find this


less than fully satisfactory, or even disquieting, I am afraid I must


give him the advice which the clerks tend to give. Namely that it is for


each member to judge whether something requires to be declared in


the course of any Parliamentary contribution. There is certainly a


relevant factor I would put to the honourable gentleman for him to


consider, which is whether such a visit was externally financed. I


would have thought that was a consideration. Members go on Select


Committee trips on a regular basis. As far as I'm aware members do not


always in the course of every question refer to the fact they have


been on a committee visit but if there is a question of outside


financing and an outside body, it might be thought to be prudent to


refer to it. I think that was the matter which the honourable lady had


in mind and if she wants now to make any declaration, very briefly, I am


happy for her to do so. Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you. It has


been brought to my attention that in asking a question a moment ago I


perhaps should have pointed the house towards my register of


interests. Well, I am grateful. The honourable gentleman always seem to


be an amiable fellow and I thought I would indulge him. Further to my


honourable friend's point of order, ditto. Well, we are very grateful. I


am sure the house feels better informed. We come now to the


statement by the Secretary of State for education. Thank you, Mr


Speaker. This government believes all children should have an


education that unlocks their potential and allows them to go as


far as their talent and hard work will take them. That is key to


improving social mobility. We made significant progress. Nine out of


ten schools are now good or outstanding and the attainment gap


is closing. We launched 12 opportunity areas to drive


improvements in parts of the country where we know they can do better.


All of this against a backdrop of unfair funding. We know the current


funding system is unfair and out of date. This means that whilst we hold


schools to the same accountability structure wherever they are, we find


them at different levels. In addition resources are not reaching


the schools that need them most. School funding is at a record high


because of the choices we have made to protect and increase school


funding. Even... Even as we face difficult decisions elsewhere to


restore our country's finances. We recognise that the election that


people were concerned about funding in schools as well as its


distribution and, as the Prime Minister said, we are determined to


listen. That is why I am confirming our plans to get on with introducing


a national funding formula in 2018-19, and I can announce this


will now be supported by significant extra investment into the core


schools budget over the next two years. The additional funding...


Detention! The additional funding I am setting out today together with


the introduction of a national funding formula will provide schools


with the investment they need to offer a world-class education to


every child. There will be an additional ?1.3 billion for schools


and high needs across 2018-19 and 2019-20, in addition to the schools


budget set at spending review 2015. This funding is across the next two


years as we transition to the national funding formula and of


course spending plans beyond will be set out in a future review. As a


result of this investment, core funding for schools and high knees


will rise from almost 41,000,000,020 17-18, up to -- high needs. In 1920,


this will rise to ?43.5 billion. This represents 1.3 William pounds


in additional investment. 416 million more than set aside at the


last spending review. And ?884 million more in 2019. It will mean


the total schools budget will increase by ?2.6 billion between


this year and 2019-20. And per pupil funding will be maintained in real


terms for the remaining two years after the spending review period up


to 2020. For this government, social mobility and education are a


priority. Introducing the national funding formula, something shied


away from by previous governments, backed by the additional investment


in schools confirmed today, will be the biggest improvement in school


funding for well over a decade. I said when I launched the


consultation in December that I was keen to hear as many views as


possible on this vital long-standing reform. I'm grateful for the


engagement of the issue of fairer funding and the national funding


formula. We received more than 25,000 responses. Including from


members from across the house. We listened carefully to feedback. We


will respond to the consultation in fall in September, but I can tell


the House the additional investment we are able to make in schools will


allow us to do several things. Including increasing the basic


amount every pew poll will attract in 2018-19, and 2019-20. For the


next two years it will provide for up to 3% gain per year per pupil for


underfunded schools, and also a zero -- a 0.5% per pupil cash increase.


We will protect funding for pupils with additional needs as proposed.


Given this additional investment we are able to increase the percentage


allocated to people lead factors and this formula settlement from 2019,


will provide ?4800 per pupil at least for every secondary school,


something I know members in a number of areas will welcome in particular.


The formula will deliver higher per-pupil funding in respect of


every school and in every local area. I believe these changes,


building on proposals set out in December, will provide a firm


foundation as we make historic reforms to the funding system.


Balancing fairness and stability. It remains our intention that a schools


budget should be set on the basis of a single mash and all formula. A


longer transition makes sense to provide stability for schools. In


2018 and 19 and 2019-20, the formula will set indicative budgets for each


school and the total funding received by each local authority


will be allocated according to the national fair funding formula and


transparently for the first time. Local authorities will set a local


formula to distribute the funding as now and for determining individual


schools budgets in 2018 onwards in consultation with schools in that


area and I will shortly publish the guidelines to allow them to begin


that process. To support their planning I confirm now that in


2018-19, all Mogul authorities will receive some increase over the


amount they plan to spend on schools and high needs and we will confirm


games for local authorities based on the final formula. The guide will


set out important areas that are fundamental to supporting a fairer


distribution through the national funding formula. We will ring-fence


the majority of funding provided for primary and secondary schools,


although local authorities in agreement with the schools forums


will be able to move limited amounts of funding to areas such as special


schools when it matches local needs. As well as this investment through


the national funding formula, I am confirming our commitment to double


PE and sport 's premium for primary schools. All primary schools will


receive an increase in sports premium funding in the next academic


year. The 1.3 billion additional investment in core schools funding I


am announcing will be funded from efficiencies and savings identified


within the existing budgets, rather than higher taxes, or more debt.


This requires difficult decisions but I believe it is right to


prioritise schools funding, even as we continue the task of repairing


the public finances. I am maximising the proportion of my department's


budget allocated directly to front-line headteachers, who can use


their expertise to ensure it is spent where it will have the


greatest possible impact and I have challenged my civil servants to find


efficiencies as schools have to do. I want to set out the savings and


efficiencies I intend to secure. Efficiencies and savings across the


capital budget I believe can release 420 million. The majority from


healthy pupils capita funding. This reflects reductions in forecast


revenue from the soft drinks industry levy and therefore the


planned budget which remains, I will channel to front-line schools,


whilst retaining a commitment that every pound of Ingham's share of


spending from the levy will be invested in improving children's


health, including 100 million in 2018-19 for healthy pupils capital.


We are committed to an ambitious free schools programme to deliver


choice, innovation and higher standards for parents. In delivering


the programme and plans for free schools announced at the last


budget, we will work efficiently to release ?280 million and this will


include delivering 30 of 140 schools through the local authority route


rather than the free schools rigged. Across the rest of the resource


budget, over ?60 billion per year, I will prioritise 250 million in 2018


and 350 million in 2019-20, to fund the increase in the course schools


budget spending. I plan to redirect ?200 million from the department's


central programmes to front-line funding. Whilst these projects are


useful I believe this funding is most and more valuable in the hands


of headteachers. Alongside an extra investment in our


core schools budget, it is vital that school leaders strive alongside


an extra investment in our core schools budget, it is vital that


school leaders strive to maximise the efficient use of their


resources, to get the best outcomes for mobility. We will now go further


to ensure thatand increase mobility. We will now go further to ensure our


commitment to ensuring substantial efficiency gains over the coming


years. Good value so-called national deals that pick your better value


goods and services on areas that all schools spend money on an purchase


goods in can save significant amounts. They are available under


the deals based in our existing work, for example in insurance or


energy, and in the case of energy, skill that that schools can save if


they use a national deal. We will expect schools to be clear that they


do not make use of these deals and have consequently higher costs.


Across school spending as a whole, we will improve the transparency and


usability of data so that parents and governors can more easily see


the way that funding is being spent and understand not just educational


standards in schools but financial effectiveness, too. We just launched


a new online if it is the benchmarking service which will


enable schools to analyse their own performance and do so much more


effectively. We recognise that many schools have worked hard to this


point to manage cost -based pressures on their budgets, and will


take issue -- action this year to provide assistance to those schools


where health is at risk, giving direct support to those schools. The


significant investment we are making in schools and the reforms we are


introducing underpin our ambition for a world-class education system.


Together they will give schools a firm foundation that will enable


them to continue to raise standards, promote social mobility and to give


every child the best possible education and the best opportunities


for the future. I thank the Secretary of State for this slight


advance sight of her statement. Mr Speaker, I will always be the first


to welcome new money for schools, after all I have spent a year asking


the Secretary of State together, schools the funding they need, so it


is nice to know I am finally getting through to her. Mr Speaker, I would


like to thank parents, school leaders, and the teachers across the


country for all the work that they have done in pushing this issue up


the political agenda. I think both the Secretary of State and I know


that this would not have been happening today without them. But


sadly, Mr Speaker, today's statement raises more questions than it


answers. I welcome the ?1.3 billion announced today, but canny Secretary


of State confirm if it will be reputable budgets in real terms are


just the overall budget? Astoundingly, this has all been


funded without a penny of new money from the Treasury. I of each outlet


did not want to fund schools and thought that teachers and teaching


assistants are simply more overpaid public servants. I wonder if the


Secretary of State agrees with him. Does her decision to seek savings


from the free schools programme mean that she has finally agreed with


others on this side of the House that the programme has always been


inefficient? The free School programme has always been more


expensive than ministers hoped, so the idea that hundreds of millions


of pounds can now be saved seems to me like a bad joke. Will she simply


be honest with the House and tell us all exactly how much money will be


cut from its spending items and who will lose out as a result? I know


they are in full retreat from their own manifesto, but I do not see how


this ?1.3 billion can possibly fit in with it. We were promised ?4


billion. A group hysteria takes over. You are usually a very


understated fellow. Rather a gentlemanly type, I had always


thought. Calm yourself. And you're sitting it's a very senior member.


Who normally behaves, Prince Andrew over there, as the very embodiment


of the dignity. I'm sure you will recover your composure in a minute.


You should watch a view Federer matches coming you alone to me about


composure. I know they are in full retreat from their manifesto, we


were promised ?4 billion at a view weeks ago, and now we are only


getting ?1.3 billion. Can schools expect anything else in future, or


is this just another broken promise? Their manifesto promise to give free


breakfast every primary school pupil, 30 said it would cost ?60


million, leaving parents across the country wondering how you can


provide that under 7p per meal. Then she said it would be ?180 million.


But it would only go to the most disadvantaged pupils. She had plenty


of time to get her figure straight, so can she tell the House if this is


Bill her policy? How many pupils will benefit, and how much will it


cost? She said that the full funding formula has been delayed again, with


local authorities playing a role in setting budgets until 2020. Is this


because he is finally acknowledging the role local for it is have to


play? Or has she simply realised that to fully implement her plans,


she would need to pass primary legislation, and her Government is


so weak and wobbly that they cannot even get new money for schools


passed through this House? What the Secretary of State has announced


that they is nothing more than a sticking plaster, per-pupil funding


will still fall over the course of this Parliament unless further


action is taken urgently. I will welcome the opportunity to protect


budgets for our schools, but this statement alone will do nothing of


the kind. I think there is only one party that is in full retreat from


its manifesto, and it is... It is certainly not this one. We heard


over the weekend... The promise do is Judas was not worth the paper it


was written on, and I think it was one of the most dishonest beauties


of electioneering I have seen. In many, many years. Our young people


deserve better than to be peddled some snake oil propaganda. I should


say that I am pleased that she recognises this extra investment, I


am shocked to hear that the Labour Party has now turned its head or


unfair funding and suggested it might have voted against introducing


fair funding in favour of a hard formula. I think many councils will


be bleak concerned about that change of stance, another one. She talked


about getting through to the party opposite in relation to funding, we


have been funding schools. The message not getting through is


perhaps to the party opposite, that simply loading up more taxes on


people and more debts on our country for young people on the future is


simply not a racist amiable way to run the public finances. What our


response shows is that Labour have learned nothing in their time in


opposition, and in fact have gone backwards. She asked some questions.


I can confirm that we are indeed saying that we're going to have a


per-pupil real term protected for the next two years, in relation to


the free schools programme, what I was actually setting out, I don't


think she understood it, but that we are protecting that but we do think


we can finance it in a more cost-effective way, and indeed she


then talked about the ?4 million, not realising that that was ?4


billion over four years and I have set out to billion pounds over two


years, so I think she will recognise that is actually bringing forward a


faster pace which is something to be welcomed. One of her a few


questions, in relation to local authorities, the approach that we


are taking, she may have known, I'm not sure from a question, that in


2018 we will always going to have local authorities used in a brooch


of using local formulae, it was bound to be a transition year


anyway, was simply saying that we want that to extend for a longer


time period. When we look at the historic nature of this change, it


is right that we take time to make sure that we work at a local level


to allow local authorities to adjust their funding and start matching the


funding formula. Schools locally will be able to see what amount they


should be getting and I have no doubt that teachers and parents and


governing bodies will raise questions local authorities that


deviates significantly away from the formula settlement that schools


think they are entitled to have. This is a strong announcement of


additional money combined with making sure that our schools budget


is for the fast time in a generation spread fairly across other schools


and our children are ever they are growing up, and I am hopeful that


the House will broadly welcome it. I call the chair of the education


select committee. The news will be welcomed by schools, teachers and


parents, especially given that it is more cost facing schools. In


addition to moving money from health to pupil programmes, she has said


that she is redirecting ?200 million from the Department on the front


line in schools, which programmes are included? We will now go through


a process of looking across those programmes to identify that ?200


million, but I think across an entire department on resource budget


of ?60 billion, it is a reasonable request to make sure that my


department and civil servants in my department are making efficiency


savings in the same way I see is set out that we are expecting schools to


do. Aptly we should do that and he'll turn at a response, to simply


dip into taxpayers' pocket every time you want to look at how we


increase front line school spending, is not only unsustainable but it is


wrong when we could do a better job using the money we have got. While I


welcome this announcement of extra money today, isn't the fact that the


Government got themselves into such a mess over schools funding an


indication of the fact that they have not been straight with people


all along, and I'm not sure they really are being entirely straight


now. The Secretary of State talks about an increased in schools budget


but fails to mention that the number of pupils has increasing vividly.


Isn't it the case that even with this money today the truth is that


since 2015 the real terms cut pair pupil that schools have faced this


?2.8 billion, and will be further ?8.9 billion even when you take into


account this extra money today? There is still a massive shortfall.


I figured is about time the Government started been straight


with the figures of the reality of what schools on the front facing. I


think we are setting out our figures transparently. But I don't expect


that happen as a result of today's announcement is for the website that


has been worrying parents about school cuts... I don't expect any of


those numbers to be updated, because it is far easier to Sibley continue


to peddle out of date data. She asked me about the numbers of


pupils, she is of course quite right and that is why I'm sure she will


welcome that I am saying the real terms per-pupil spending will be


maintained. This is very good news for schools as they prepare to break


up for the summer holiday. Can affect her for engaging so


constructively with colleagues across the House to make this


progress? In particular, can I welcome her focus on the worst


funded schools and bringing them up, which has been so critically


important for so long. I think it is not a fundamental change in how we


fund our schools that it is extremely challenging to be able to


get this right, and I think the reason we held a very long


consultation and I have taken our time to do this is to make sure that


we can have this work on the ground as we fully intend. I do appreciate


that for colleagues in very different communities up and down


our country, a formula needs to work for all of them, not just some of


them, and that is why we be listening to what people are saying


and reflected that today. I was at Airedale Academy and it has


already had this year ?140,000 cut to its budget, ?190 per child. Can


you tell me if there is anything in the statement that tells me they


will get any of that money back? Our schools are heavily hit by her


formula, despite being in a deprived area. She said the schools will


still only get a 0.5% cash increase per-pupil. Can she confirm it means


a lot of kids will have a real funding cut? How many will still


face a real cut to funding next year? There are a number of things


in the statement that will be of welcome to her. As she pointed out,


we said we will introduce a 0.5% increase per-pupil for schools


currently above the formula and therefore not the ones that need to


catch up through additional funding. I would point out the position of


our party and her party was that there would be no cash users. We are


going beyond that today, in other words her school would receive more


than it would, had her party won the election. Clearly more money going


to the front line of schools is a very good thing. The devil will be


in the detail of the formula, which I know from having spent hours


poring over it. I want to pick her up onto things, the first about the


increased percentage allocated to people lead factors and many are


unhappy about the percentage the basic pupil funding. The second


about the ?4800. Many schools in Leicestershire and elsewhere have


been underfunded historically for many years. ?4800 does not get them


towards the ?6,000 per pupil which schools in other parts of the


country are getting. I appreciate she haps to operate with constraints


on public spending but on behalf of schools in Leicestershire, they need


historical underfunding corrected. She will no doubt welcome the fact


the announcement means there will be an increase in the extent of funding


through the core pupil led factors. I thought it was right to protect


the amount going into additional... Children with additional need


because we want to see them catch up. In relation to the overall


amount, I assure her the formula takes into account different cost


bases, different parts of the country have. This announcement will


mean that schools will get more funding, but also, schools will


catch up faster, because I have announced they will be a 3% increase


for the two years, rather than the previous proposal. It is unclear


whether the Secretary of State has dealt with the underlying problems


with funding formula. Nine schools in some of the most deprived parts


of Leicester West would have lost out. That is because the


government's initial proposals drastically reduced the amount of


money allocated according to deprivation. That is what happened.


She shakes her head, but that happened in my constituency. Can she


tell me, has the underlying basis of the funding for been changed, or are


schools in the most deprived areas still going to get a bigger cut,


harming, not helping social mobility? We will set out the detail


of the national funding formula but it is not true to say the


deprivation amounts were cut. I actively made sure they were


protected. In her community she will no doubt welcome the fact that


schools already well funded are being protected, indeed more as I


said to the right honourable lady across the chamber, more than they


would have been had her party won the election. Can I welcome the


Secretary of State's statement and applaud her for listening to


concerns many expressed about the funding formula for our local


schools. At the end of the day what matters to schools as the budget


they will get. When will schools be communicated with to be told exactly


what this will mean for individual school budgets? That is what


headteachers and governors and parents will want to know. Can she


confirm that the promise not to cut funding from any school also applies


to special schools? The local authorities will go through a


process of setting a local formula, but we will confirm what the


application is notionally to each school in September. That is a


significant process that involves confirming allocations for 24,000


schools. What I set out today is not just funding for the course schools


budget, but also high need, which I hope is good news for him. Schools


in central Bedfordshire get ?4314 per pupil and will be grateful to


learn of 4800 per-pupil. What can she is due to spread best practice


across academies about covering lessons when teachers are not ill?


Some academies timetable extra time so staff can cover other staff. Can


she have a word to spread best practice across academies say


children do not miss out on lessons? I will. One of the biggest


challenges and also an opportunity in the system is to enable best


practice to spread more rapidly around the system which is one


reason I introduced research schools that can be hubs in their area to


make sure they disseminate best practice. By protecting per-pupil


funding from next year, it does nothing to cuts? What assessment has


she made the impact of raiding her own capital budget on the vital


improvements many schools in my constituency will now have to wait


longer for? The funding set out is for 2018-19, when the formula gets


introduced. In relation to capital, I believe we can make a better use


of our budget and there was significant funding set aside in


relation to the sugar drinks industry levy. We have been able to


retain that additional money in spite of the levy being at a


slightly lower level than originally is elected. I am therefore pushing


it to the front line which I hope you welcome. Mistakenly, because I


try to do two things at once, I called two government backbenchers


in succession. I would not want there to be a lingering sense of


resentment on the opposition backbenchers. I want to press the


Secretary of State on the point about where the money is coming from


within her department. It sounds like she will be robbing Peter to


pay Paul from within the central programmes. Can she set out more


clearly which of these programmes will be cut, or is she promising not


to cut any of them from the central programme? The teaching leadership


College, mentoring programme, longer school day programme, 16-19 budget,


all the apprenticeships programme will get cut? What is important is


to make sure we look across the piece to gain additional


efficiencies from the Department. I would say to him, he just talks


about cups. The reality is we have to ensure we take every pound of


taxpayers' money and get the most out of it. It has been something


that has struck me about how many different pots of money across the


department there are and we have to make them work more strategically


and in doing so, we can unlock funding that can go to the front


line of schools. Could I welcome the statement? Could I give the


Secretary of State ten out of ten for progress and a huge Goldstar


Ryan listening to concerns of members on the side and no doubt the


other side. -- a huge Goldstar for listening. I was at an outstanding


academy in my constituency, that is the Ofsted rating. They will not be


replacing eight teachers and a librarian because of difficulties


with their budget. I hope this announcement will go some way to


rectifying that. Their complaint is not the formula but the rise in


costs. Huge rises in pensions and National Insurance contributions,


which nobody begrudges. It is a small part of the peace. Can I urge


her to look at why it is local authorities in particular are


putting on schools the apprenticeship levy. That cannot be


right. It is not a lot of money but meaningful for school budgets. I


recognise what she is saying. It is important we get on with making more


apprenticeships available for young people, including in sectors like


education. I recognise what she says and think it's important my


department does more to work with schools to help them deal with some


of the cost -based pressures they have faced. I feel best practice can


be spread more effectively through schools when they are working out


ways to do smart timetabling, smart deals in relation to procurement. We


need to do that systematically and if we can I believe we can get more


out of the budget than we already have. Pursuant to the points of


order I took immediately after questions on the subject of HS2, a


series of points of order from right honourable and honourable members on


both sides of a house, I can now inform the house that the secretary


is -- the Secretary of State for Transport would like to make a


statement at the moment of interruption, that is to say at 10pm


this evening. I have axed seed into that request on the basis -- I have


agreed to that request on the basis and have received that assurance.


There will be a statement, I believe entitled HS2 update, at the moment


of interruption tonight. I hope that is helpful to the house. In December


last year, the audit office said it was her department that expected 8%


cuts equivalent to ?3 billion in school budgets. No one else but her


department. 24 million across Greenwich schools, equivalent of 672


teachers. She went into the last election saying my schools were


overfunded. Does she still believe that? I do not believe we said that


but what I can say to his schools, they will now get a better


settlement under the national funding formula than they would of


got under his party. I know the house will want to be well-informed.


The moment of interruption would be expected to be 10pm on Amond, but it


is not certain to be ten. It could be earlier, it could later. The


point colleagues need to have lodged in their little grey cells is that


statement will come at the moment of interruption. Keep an eye on the


annunciator. I know parents and pupils in my constituency will be


delighted with that minimum funding of secondary school education, which


will present a substantial increase in secondary school funding. But I


would be grateful if she could outline the minimum level of funding


for primary school pupils, which was not addressed in her statement. She


is right. We will set out more of those details in September but what


we are setting out today is we recognise there is an issue of


minimum funding levels in secondary and we would expect that to be


reflected in primary. Figures from her department showed 21 schools in


my constituency were going to lose out under her plans for the national


funding formula before the announcement today. I am concerned


they still will. Can she guarantee today those schools that were going


to lose out on the basis of the formula now no longer will and will


actually see games? -- a gain. I have been clear every school will


see a gain from the announcement made today, which I hope is good


news. It is a reflection of the need to strike a balance between bringing


up long-term underfunded schools and recognising schools that have been


at higher levels of funding needs to be helped to get on to the national


funding formula. May I welcome this announcement from my right


honourable friend? It is a real moment of celebration for those who


have campaigned for years for a proper fair funding formula. Could


she confirm to my governors and headteachers in Gloucestershire that


by 2020, all pupils currently receiving ?3800 per pupil will by


that time received 4800? We will have a minimum that is ?4800


which will be transitioned in this two years, and I think it is good


news 11 like to pay tribute to him, because he has been a tireless


campaigner on fair funding, and he has done an outstanding job of being


clear with me about his local community concerns and also a desire


to see if their funding, and it is responding to colleagues like him


which has led us to the statement today. The National Audit Office at


a few months ago said that school budgets needed an extra ?3 billion


by 2020 to avoid cuts. How do she square that ?3 billion figure with


the ?1.3 billion he has announced today over two years? Was she also


tell the House that she knows the high needs budget, knees bending on


special education needs, is rising faster in inflating and faster than


pupil numbers, what in the statement will deal with that? In relation to


his original point, we are maintaining the real terms funding


per pupil, that is what I have set out today. That sits alongside the


other work we're doing with schools to enable them to unlock efficiency


strongly in investment which is ready there. In relation to high


needs, I have set out further additional funding for high needs


which I hope he will welcome, and I know and understand his long-term


interest in area. I hope she will accept that West Sussex MPs who have


been working with heads and parents will welcome the progress in her


statement, can I say about half of the backbenchers, perhaps the PPS


and the minister that we all work together and hope to go on doing so


to get more progress in future. It has indeed been a team effort in


order to work out how we can best bring forward what is a very


difficult thing, which is a national funding formula which broadly works


for many different schools across our country. Wherever they are. It


is fair. We have got more detail set out in the autumn, but I hope today


I have given a clear signal to the House that we are moving in the


right direction and I going to take this step forward and make sure we


do have their funding. The Secretary of State's partial U-turn is bound


to be welcomed. Can she give a guarantee, given the strawberry cost


pressures that many schools across the board already face, that no


school across Rochdale will be forced to cut teachers or teaching


assistant over this two period? There will be high up their pupils


funding in respect of every single school in every local area. What


we're saying is we want to be able to get more money to headteachers to


be able to take the decisions that they think are in the best interests


of their schools. I have spent many years as a school governor and I


know the work that goes on to try and make the most out of the budget,


but I am also setting out, I to challenge my own department, so that


we can put that money into the hands of headteachers to spend on the


front line of schools. In welcoming the additional funding for Stockport


schools, may I also welcome a very listening Secretary of State. We'll


see perhaps prove her metal further by taking on board the


recommendations on recruitment and retention contained in the last


Parliament's education committee report? This is a vital issue. I


think we have more teachers in our school system than ever before, but


we need them. We had to make sure that the teaching profession, and I


have always seen it as a profession, is one that is a strong career for


teachers, one that means that they see continued professional


development right the way through their careers and is competitive,


and frankly one of my old teachers is retiring today, opting for them,


I have written a note to thank him for 45 years of service to children


about them. It is an amazing vocation and one which I would


recommend to anyone who cares about developing our young people by the


future. As other members have highlighted, the National Audit


Office and the Secretary of State's own permanent secretary have


highlighted the ?3 billion of savings they will have to make their


2020. That includes ?1.7 billion what the department describes as


more efficient use of staff. Given that she is now trading the fact


that she is giving ?1.3 million in additional investment, can she tell


us, hand on heart, that she is giving more money are others


efficiency savings continuing as a wetland? This is very clearly an


announcement of more money, and think it is important as she will


recognise that we work with schools, not only on their non-staff budget,


but also on their staff budget, and indeed when I talk to headteachers,


they are very keen to make sure that they are able to use the stat that


they have got as well as they can, and we will work more proactively


with schools to make that might help them understand how to do that


better. Can I congratulate the Government for choosing to


prioritise school funding, which has been such a huge use you and right


across the country, had all the MPs in Cheshire have come to you, saying


what we need for our local schools, so I welcome today's announcement.


Everybody can be clear, canny Secretary of State just confirm that


what you are saying is that they will be a higher per pupil funding


for every pupil? Indeed, we will be making that funding available to


local authorities, I'm saying that any and local authorities will also


go through a process of setting their local formula, but the finding


that we're giving enables them to do that. It is fantastic to see her


back in the chamber, she made a rapid start to representing her


community in relation to this, after she came back into the House, and it


is great to see her. She was subject to some of the nappy campaigning


that I think will be debated later on in this chamber. On Friday, Raven


stone primary School in Bal said a letter to parents announcing that


they were making five essential support staff go. They have also


lost a deputy headteacher, it is still had not made these cuts the


school would have faced a budget deficit of over ?150,000. Can she


today pledged that schools in tooting body given the necessary


funding to maintain current staffing levels and will she meet with me and


a fantastic headteacher of Raven stone school to discuss this matter


in person? I pay tribute to the hard work of many teachers, many of them


I know, in our local borough of Wandsworth, I think we also need to


recognise that where that school a different part of the country, it


would get a very different funding settlement. We expect to deliver the


same results for its local children. What I am doing today is setting out


that we want to have furnace in our funding formula and what we have set


out will also mean that there is additional money going into schools.


I very much welcome my right honourable friend's announcement


today and I thank her for all her work, but can she confirm that areas


like mine in Medway will benefit from the new funding formula? We are


being charged with building historic numbers of homes in the Medway


towns, and we are seeing new schools coming online. We'll be get more?


Under Labour, we saw schools shut in the Medway towns. It was just great


inflation and poor standards we inherited from Labour, it was a


schools places crisis. Which is why we had to get on and build hundreds


and thousands of school places for children who needed them, and that


is precisely why we are doing this. The funding formula will indeed mean


that her schools get higher per pupil funding in respect of schools


in her local area. I can assure how we will not make this a mistake as


the party opposite end up planning ahead on having the school places


that children need in their local communities, making sure that they


do not end up without them. This statement does nothing to address


the serious underfunding and consistent underfunding of 16-18,


this was under spent over the last two years by ?267 million. But the


Government come it to the allocate those monies as soon as possible,


and also address the underfunding for 60-18 -year-olds going forward?


He raises an important point. -- 16-18. In respect of technical


education, it is something which has been put on one side for too many


years. It now needs to be focused on. That is why the centrepiece of


the budget from my perspective was the skills budget, which we


announced back in March, the CBI called it a breakthrough budget for


skills. We are now getting on with that reform, not just in terms of


continuing to bring forward more apprenticeships but also now working


with organisations like the CBI and Federation of Small Businesses to


look at how we can bring forward the reforms so that every single child


who chooses to continue their education but was to go down a


technical education route rather than a pure academic one can have


that route, every bit as gold standard as the academic one that we


have built. Can I thank the Secretary of State? This is great


news. I have been telling my constituents that she has listened


and indeed she has proven so. Can I just ask a couple of things? I


appreciate time is tight and September is the indicator, but my


skills are letting teachers go today. If there's any ties begin at


a heads up on the figures ahead of September, that would be helpful. We


can prove more efficient than many schools in the country, and can I


get to look at that apprenticeship leading? It doesn't really work


force rules. I take her point, and I can assure how we will be working


very proactively with schools, particularly trying to focus on the


ones that are saying that they face the biggest challenges. That is why


I put together a team of this is the advisers that will be able to go out


on the ground and work directly with schools. I think we can make a lot


of progress in this area, but we also need to, and I recognise the


point that she is making on cost basis, and figured as much right to


strike a balance between making sure that our apprenticeships, strategy


does give opportunity to young people everything sector. We also


need to make sure we get funding to the front line of schools, that is


what I have announced today. I welcome more funding, schools like


Derby high in my constituency cannot recruit teaching talent. They faced


rising costs. National insurance, ageing teaching population, the


apprenticeship levy, and they are facing increasing class sizes and


need a new school building. With this new money be enough to address


these complicated problems, and will it go far enough to address


enrichment activities that have all but disappeared in schools? With a


whole generation of children, from 2010, missing out on these


activities because of the imposition of posterity by your Government? --


prosperity. I know he shares my concern around


improving education standards in Derby. This has been a challenge for


many... It is just a school called Derby. I should clarify, that had he


also been from the centre of Derby, I was going to talk about how


important to me the opportunity that we put an Derby is. I apologise for


not recognising him as the obviously new member representing Barry. But I


assure him that I take as great a standard, priorities and is in his


schools and at school in particular as any others. We have tried to set


out a way of making sure that funding is there for all schools


including the one that he is talking about. It will be complemented with


additional funding which I think is something that he should welcome.


This is a part of our strategy on improving standards, in education,


but by no means all of it, it is not just about the amount of money we


put into schools, it is about what we then do with it and the strategy


behind it, and as we have seen, Labour in Wales on education, has


been going backwards. That is because it has no strategy, and as a


result children are getting worse standards. We do have a strategy


that as bystanders going up. -- standards are going up.


I welcome the commitment to ensure no school loses out on the funding


formula. It is nice to see one party takes its election commitments at


election time seriously. For clarity, can she confirm to the


parents and teachers concerned about some of the scare stories kicking


around around March this year that no school will lose out because of


the changes in the funding formula? I believe I can in this sense we are


going beyond saying those schools will lose out as a result of the


formula, to say every school will gain at least 0.5% additional as


part of the introduction of the formula. It is important to be clear


that the way we are introducing it is to work with local authorities


and they will put their own formula and final allocation to schools but


what we are giving them means no school need to lose out and in fact


further than that, every school should be able to gain. Warrington


is one of the most funded authorities in the country and yet


schools in my constituency were still losing out under the funding


formula she proposed and preparing to sack teachers and teaching


assistants. Can she confirmed that she still does not regard these as


being underfunded schools, and that's the 0.5% increase will not


meet the costs imposed on them by staff pay rises, the apprenticeship


levy and general inflation and pupils in those schools. These out?


I think I would say at this stage she may be better off lobbying her


own front bench. What I set out today means her school will get a


better settlement than had her own party disastrously in my opinion


with macro that election. Can I thank my right honourable friend for


listening to the consultation. Dorset has been underfunded for many


years and we are extremely grateful at the announcement today. Two


points. Can she guarantee special needs will be properly funded and I


do not agree with the apprenticeship levy, which you look at that again?


In relation to high need, I have set out the additional funding will


impart flow into high needs, which is important, and the apprenticeship


levy, we are working with schools on teaching and apprenticeship that


will not only mean we can have more opportunity but will also enable


those schools to use that investment wisely. Does the Secretary of State


think it is right schools in my constituency are already having to


rely on donations from parents for books, stationery and other basic


resources? This is not scaremongering, this is actually


happening. First we recognise the most important thing for parents 's


standards are going up and they are and we saw that in the recent key


stage two results last week. I hope she will recognise that if there


have been concerns on funding this statement is a step in the right


direction because we are going to fund more into front-line schools


and I'm saying we will find it more fairly, something long overdue. Can


I mark my right honourable friend's home work with a resounding tick,


VG. And can we right in the margin a notes to the effect that under her


stewardship this government is spending more on schools than the


party opposite ever did. Can I ask for her reassurance on a point I


have lobbied her on and ministers for some time and that is Devon has


been historically underfunded. Can she assure me this welcome package


means that historic underfunding, which has existed under governments


of all colours, will be corrected and if she can do that I will


upgrade her to a gold star. I think I might be getting upgraded because


I can tell him this will mean additional funding for schools in


Devon. I know the debate that has happened in that part and it is


vital, if we have a country that works for everyone that regions like


the south-west are able to develop their talent in the same way as any


other part of our country and Devon will benefit from my announcement


today. I remain concerned about the position of the 28 schools in


Liverpool Riverside who were due to lose funding under the government


formula. Can she assure me they will not lose any funding from any source


and would she agreed the ?200 million cut to central projects,


which she announced today, is really cutting by the back door? I do not


agree. I can confirm we will be making available additional funding,


including to schools in her community. If any of them get less


that is a decision by her local authority, which I'm sure she would


want to follow up. I think we have to recognise over time there are a


number of different pools of money that quite rightly are directed to


improve schools across our country. I want to see those working more


efficiently but we should recognise there are broader parts of the


Department for Education where we need to make sure that parts of my


Department are run efficiently. The prize for doing that better is to


have more money to channel to the front line of schools which I plan


to do. Under the outgoing system introduced under a previous Labour


administration, schools in West Sussex were some of the lowest


funded in the country and I botched welcome the new formula being


introduced, which will see a significant enhancement for schools


in Crawley. Can I seek assurances however that capital funding will


not be affected as part of this new revenue coming forward? For example,


necessary rebuilding works of holy Trinity School in my constituency. I


can assure him there is a substantial capital budget that will


be there to not only deliver additional school places but also to


invest in improving our school estate. I can assure him of that and


what I have set out is that some of the additional money we expected


from the sugar drinks industry levy can be converted into, we can retain


the money and converted into revenue to go to front lines of schools but


on capital we will continue to invest in school estate. Can I offer


to help our in finding efficiencies in the budget because no school on


their own can take on the other fair rising PFI costs, but the Department


could lead a challenge, and will she help schools in my constituency do


that? One thing we have had to deal as part of the draft formula


consultation was to accept there are schools that are saddled with PFI


commitments from the party opposite. Rather than penalise them, what we


proposed was we would honour those commitments. She raises a genuine


point, which is we need to work with schools that have got these


liabilities to understand how we can manage them effectively. We need to


learn from those mistakes so looking ahead we do not saddle schools with


the debts and commitments they cannot afford as part of Labour's


failed PFI schemes. Schools in Corby in East Northamptonshire have been


underfunded far too long and I am pleased she putting that right but


will she continued to keep at the forefront of her mind to the


challenges rural schools have and the big challenges housing growth


presents? He will know that the original consultation formula looked


at how schools is more sparsely populated areas could cope


effectively and that we could cope with housing growth. I said I would


respond more fully to the consultation in September, which


will cover that but he is right to put those issues on the table and


they once we will carefully about. In my constituency many of the


primary schools are having or planning to cut staff. Under the new


formula, all but one of the secondary schools will have big cuts


in their budget. If this is such a good formula and settlement, will it


not happen? The amount of money his local authority will get over that


in the coming two years will not see cuts. It will mean there is a 0.5%


increase per pupil allocated to that community. I reiterate it is a


better settlement for those schools than they would have had had his


party won the election. I accept over the years I have been a pain to


both parties and I remember saying to the Prime Minister Tony Blair


many years ago that the funding, postcode lottery if you like,


between counties is unfair and his agreeing, but doing nothing about it


and I was a pain to the schools minister, who I gave a hard time to


a couple of months ago. Can I say how much I welcome the announcement


today? May I ask this in particular, she will know how much the National


Union of Teachers website alarmed students and parents over the last


few months. Can I ask when our school funding formula is announced,


it to be transparent and available on a website school by school?


Indeed it will be. I hope that the unions will choose to update their


websites with accurate data. As the questions have demonstrated today,


it is not easy taking this step to introduce fairer funding. There are


millions of reasons why it isn't difficult step for any government,


but we have done it because I do not think we can expect social mobility


to happen nor strong education outcomes in every part of our


country, when our children are funded in such different ways,


dependent on where they are growing up. Nobody can accept that if we


want to tackle inequality of opportunity and that is why we are


making new steps. It is not easy, it is complex, but we are doing it


because it is the right thing. I welcome any additional funding.


There is concern about the safety of schools following the Grenfell Tower


disaster. Could she update me on how many schools in my constituency will


be inspected and how that work will be coordinated and how any remedial


action identified will be funding? I hope you will be reassured that we


have done a survey across all of our schools to identify any that have or


think they might have this sort of cladding. We had a good response


from schools and we have been in contact with the handful of members


of this House who have had a school that has had cladding that has been


for testing. I can be reassuring in saying we were clear with schools


that where there was any sign they might have cladding, that this fire


inspection should go ahead of any cladding being tested and we have


gone through that process and for the two schools where we have


positive tests, the fire inspection results had show the schools were


safe to operate. He's right to identify how important this is and I


can assure the house it has been uppermost in our minds in recent


weeks. I welcome the extra funding for schools in my constituency


especially extra investment into core schools budget and a higher


per-pupil funding. Can she confirmed the formula will address the


unfairness that has seen some schools across East Sussex


underfunded for many years? Yes, it will do. She has spoken up for her


local community in this regard and this announcement will mean more


money for her local communities. I have no doubt her local authority


will want to make sure they spread that money fairly and indeed will be


setting out the notional allocations for schools in the autumn. Could I


suggest that with the ?1 billion in March in the budget for capital


funding to extend the free schools programme, combined with the


millions her department has written off, because of the chaotic funding


formula for free schools, would it be better to scrap the free schools


policy and put money into schools like mine in a deprived area, that


are seeing cuts to teachers and services? We need to get a balance


between investing in the existing school estate as she set out but


also planning ahead to ensure we have school places and schools for


children coming into our system, particularly the secondary school


system. All we say in relation to free schools is the long-standing


monopoly councils hard on being the only organisations that could


introduce a new school should change and we changed it so that


communities could set up very in schools. That is what many have done


and why we have seen so many free schools established and we will


bring forward the pipeline so more can happen in the future. Like many


I welcome the commitment to the national funding formula and I am


confident the schools in Carlisle will welcome the increase in


spending. Could the Secretary of State confirm the successful pupil


funding will continue as is and there are no plans for it to form


part of the national funding formula? I can confirm the premium


will be maintained. It is important and has been a significant driver of


how we have managed to steadily begin to reduce the attainment gap


between children in our country. In the previous Secretary of State


with only commit to two years of the funding formula and would give no


commitment posts 2020. In a statement today, we get reference to


a longer transition period. Can the Secretary of State now confirm how


long it is going to take to implement the full formula changes?


I will set out more fully our response to the consultation in the


art and I appreciate as she sets out that there are more details that we


need to come forward with. What I am doing today is being clear about the


overall funding whilst also giving colleagues some assurance of


specific elements before we set out the full plans in September.


Can I welcome the Secretary of State's statement. One teacher has


already e-mailed me saying it could be worth around ?300 per pupil.


Torpey has been underfunded due to the inequities in the funding


formula. Can she confirmed that those funding amounts will be


quickly available so they would have to rely on any dodgy websites?


Once we have done our analysis over the summer we will make those


schools spreadsheet available and I very much hope they will be the ones


that people look at because they will contain the actual reality of


what we are funding of schools rather than some of the falsehoods


that have been peddled. Does the Minster accept that with


schools having to pay ?525 million in contributions to teachers pension


scheme and ?625 million national insurance contributions and with


inflation at 2.9%, that the 1.3 billion announced will barely cover


these costs? I don't agree with that actually.


What is important is that we are able to maintain the rates of


per-pupil funding in our schools. That is what I set out today and we


can only do that because we have a strong economy that is creating jobs


and economy and taxes that fund are vital public services. What we can


do is fall into the trap of thinking that every time we want to increase


public spending that we have to reach in -- reach into the public's


pockets via taxes. It is not sustainable, nor is it sustainable


to increase debt when our debt interest is still bigger than the


amounts that we're talking about investing every year in our schools.


It is vital that we have a long-term strategy to deal with that debt and


what I'm setting out today is that I do believe that we can make our


department and budget work more effectively and in doing so get more


money the front line of schools. That has got to be the first port of


call rather than resorting to higher taxes or more debt.


As a parent and member of the rural constituency, I welcome the


statement this afternoon. On the point of plurality, as the finessing


of formula moves on, can you keep in mind the high cost of delivering


staffing and the running of a school in a rural area against an urban


setting. I would hope that was taken into account.


He has quite rightly set out his concerns for his area. This was part


of the consultation that we launched earlier in the year. We now have


25,000 responses back to it which we have just about gone through. We


will set out our full response in September but suffice to say I do


recognise these issues and they are precisely the issues that I am


trying to get right. I appreciate you don't yet have the


details of what you're proposing. Parents and headteachers from my


constituency will be listening and wondering, as I am, what this means


for our schools. We were expecting to have cuts of up to ?700 per


pupil. It is one of the most deprived schools in our constituency


under fair funding proposals. Can I know go back and assure them that


those cuts will not know go ahead. I think she will welcome the


statement may today that means higher funding for every school in


her constituency and every local area. I hope she passes on -- the


local authority passes on those gains.


Can I welcome the statement on the fair funding formula? I am a proud


father of three children who will benefit as result of these


announcements. Can she confirm that every parent with children at


schools will benefit and no constituency will lose out as result


Western Mark I can confirm that what he has said is indeed the case.


That is why this is important. We need to have more investment in our


school system and that is precisely what we're doing but also make sure


that it is fairly funded. Know he represents a community that will


benefit from the fair funding system.


I welcome any attempts at a fair funding formula but I'm concerned


that funding doesn't reach schools with high proportions of high needs


students. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that in developing this


funding formula the exceptional needs of those Heiney children will


always be protected and not at the expense of try to even things up?


This statement will mean more money going into the high needs budget


which I'm sure she will welcome. It is also worth reflecting on the fact


more generally that there has been money made available to children


going into primary and secondary already behind to help them catch


up. We've looked at this a number of different ways to make sure that no


child was in getting the appropriate amount of investment. I concern in


doing all of this was the fact that a child growing up in her community


would get a very different amount invested in them than it had grown


up different part of the country and that is iniquitous and something we


need change and I'm delighted to be able to say we are introducing fair


funding so we will change that that for the better.


Can I congratulate her on the statement? Schools in my


constituency will be delighted that the per-pupil funding is being


protected. Taxpayers will be delighted to hear that it is being


done from departmental efficiencies. Which agree that doing it this way


rather than putting the cost on to future generations is correct?


I totally agree. None of these steps are easy. Easy thing is to put up


tax which is what the party opposite wants to do. I don't think that is


the right thing to do and never more so than with some of the challenges


our country faces. We need to make sure that the money we are already


getting is used efficiently. That means we can put more money to the


front line of schools. When the schools minister Heather to


left a cross-party delegation of Cumbria MPs in March, he was clear


that it was necessary and fear for the schools budget, after having


been protected to know players part in the government strategy of


deficit reduction. Was he right or wrong?


I think he has tried to get politics out of what is a sensible


announcement that I have made about more funding for schools. I'm


interested in what we're doing to practically improve education rather


than the politics around it. Can I thank her and her ministers


for taking time to listen to my concerns about Cheltenham schools


and schools up and down the country affected by historic unfairness?


This is a huge step forward. Can she confirm that every secondary school


in Cheltenham will receive at least ?4000 per-pupil regardless of which


pupils might be eligible? I set out today that we will indeed


be putting forward ?4800 amount. I should put on record my tribute to


him on the campaign setting it has local community's concerns in


Cheltenham. He has done a good job of being clear about what local


needs were and it has been helpful for the statement today.


Many young people in Bristol choose to go to college rather than stay in


their own school for sixth form. We'll be also benefit from fairer


funding because the choices at the moment are being restricted due to


cuts to sixth form colleges. The statement today is in relation


to the core schools budget and there will be higher funding in respect of


every school and local area. This will enable schools to do a better


job of the provision that they have. She sets out the broader challenges


about sex for funding but I want to reassure her and a house that we are


committed to making sure the children stay in a school system


that is well funded. I know that in Bristol it is one of those regions


that has focused on education in recent years with success and I


think it is important that we work together to see that success


continue. This statement will be welcomed by


parents across Nottingham and I and sure that people will be helping to


disseminate the good news. Can I press on the issue of free schools?


I'm glad she is still committed to them. We have seen the good effects


that free schools can have on communities. While she confirm that


all free schools due to open either this September or next September


will still open? Absolutely. There is a strong


pipeline of preschools. That is what we're getting on with. More than


that is that we are underwriting the next hundred and 14 beyond that. I


think we can deliver it more cost effectively and their award means


additional funding to the front line of schools and communities like his


own. I welcome the additional investment


announced today but the Secretary of State will know that previous


statements made in the last parliament by ministers in relation


to core funding and the National School funding formula will have


already been factored into schools' business plans. As a result, they


will have already started restructuring and laying off


teachers and support staff. Can she confirm there is nothing in the


statement today that hit will undo the damage already done by the


government? The direction of travel including in


schools in London has been positive and that direction of travel is the


real challenge to improve school standards across the country. I hope


that direction of travel will continue and having been a governor


myself I'm sure that the funding that I'm setting out today will be


spent by schools as and when they receive it.


Can I push the Secretary of State is to give a little bit more guidance


with respect to how the money will be allocated by local authorities?


In particular, will she allow honourable members who have got more


involved in schools spreadsheets than they would care to identify the


process where some schools are treated unfairly?


Local authorities will consult only formula over the money they will get


and then spread around the school system. What we've done is make sure


for the first time as of 2018/19, that amount will be fair I like how


we have seen in the past. I want them to be involved in the


consultation process to make sure the money is well spread that I will


make sure that it is available to every single school from 2018/ 19.


Schools who do not want to process that amount will be asked why they


are not doing so? . On Friday, my constituency said that


high needs was an issue raised to me so can I thank her for this


statement, in particular the focus in that area? As she has been so


bold, may I ask are also to look at nursery funding and also post 16?


Where standards can really make a difference to our children.


I can reassure her that we have and indeed she knows that there has


never been more investment going into early years and under this


government. The good news is that the quality of early years probation


is getting better and that is something that is really to be


welcomed. Over time, I think it can significantly shift the dial on


social mobility. We will come to the honourable lady


in a moment. We are saving her up. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Could I


warmly welcome the statement for the Secretary of State that will benefit


all the schools in my constituency, can I also welcome that it is from


efficiencies within the Department rather than borrowing, but can I


have the Secretary of State to concern that this measure is not


being funded on the excellent announcement of the extra half


billion she is investing in technical education, because that is


an important reform that she's making.


If I can take this opportunity to welcome him to the House and I would


say we are committed to pushing on with that budget announcement, I am


determined to make sure that this really will be the breakthrough


budget for skills, that the CBI described it as, and we have had


excellent engagement with envoy is on technical education since we set


out our strategy, the assessment will be coming in.


Thank you, Mr Speaker. I also join greet this announcement, and I have


just been hosting in Parliament will welcome it, but can she confirmed in


my constituency that we have a three tier education system, can she


confirm that the three tier system will also benefit from this


announcement but she has made as the two tier will as well.


I can confirm that it will mean higher per-pupil funding in respect


of every school in her local community, I think that is good news


for Redditch and I think it will see continued improvements and


standards. Thank you, Secretary of State.


Order. Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. On


Friday I was meant to meet with the tribunal staff at Bennett house in


my constituency. Bennett houses a Ministry of Justice building


scheduled for closure and I was meeting stuff with concerns about


this plan in my capacity as a member of Parliament. The meeting had been


moved as officials informed stuff that I would be allowed on site and


should I try to get on side I would be prevented from doing so. I seek


your guidance on how best I could raise this matter with the Ministry


of Justice and seek from you to ensure that other members of


Parliament and scratch my art when inhibited and go along their duties.


What I would say to the honourable gentleman, if the honourable


gentleman, who is a new member of the house, or rather new, is


alleging that there is a breach of privilege, that is something that is


properly raised in writing with me. I would then address the matter in


turn in writing. However, as the honourable gentleman has not


specifically used that term or made that allegation, but complained of


what might be called, in his mind, certainly, and unreasonable


prevention or some sort of let or hindrance, what I would say to him


is as follows, it is not a point of order as mere chair of the house,


but said, I must say I am concerned to hear that a Government department


has prevented his access to a Government building in his own


constituency. This is ultimately a matter for ministers to determine,


but let me say that without fear of contradiction and very explicitly


that it strikes me as an unhelpful attitude. The honourable gentleman


has made his concern clear and it is on the record, but it does seem to


me that it is pretty obviously and on track unhelpful attitude on the


part of the Department and I would hope that a minister would direct


the Department not to obstruct member going about business in that


way. We will leave it there. Presentation of build, Chris


Grayling. Second reading, what day?


Tomorrow. Thank you. We now come to the emergency debate on scheduling


of Parliamentary business by the leader of the House. To move the


motion, I called the shadow leader of the House.


Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to move the motion standing in that this


House has considered the shed relation of Parliamentary business


and the obligations of the two years engine for standing order


requirements. I want to thank you for agreeing that this debate should


take place. This is not a debate about a debate, but it is about an


important point of principle, our Parliamentary democracy and the role


of this House. It is about the opposition and other members holding


the Government to account, it is about the sovereignty of Parliament.


This house is not super iron, our constituents, the electorate expect


us to be here, they voted for us, in the official case, to setup the


programme for change, because Mr Speaker, this minority Government is


not working. Can I start by turning to standing order, these are set out


in the blue book, rules and procedures have to be certain and


clear, and what is it say about opposition days? Standing order 14,


20 days she'll be allotted in each session in proceedings on opposition


business. 17 for Leader of the Opposition, and three at the


disposal of the leader of the second largest opposition party. If you


hang on a second, giving the announcement by the Government of a


two-year session, references to session in standing orders should be


interpreted as per year, therefore with the dates allocated pro rata.


And so the Government announced by press release read to you


Parliamentary session, double the length of a normal Parliamentary


session. Therefore, using the plain words, the implication, the days


would be doubled. I give way. She does not realise how lucky she


is. When we were in opposition, we did not have the benefit of the


Speaker in the chair to call urgent questions with the frequency that he


does now to the huge advantage of the house. We have traded any


composition days for the wisdom of the current Speaker, and long may he


remain in the chair, because with an opposition Day debate, by the time


you actually get to the debate, the gallery is empty and the generalists


have all pushed off having written their copy.


I'm going to get very emotional in a moment!


I think that is not deserve any response whatsoever. Wait for this,


in need 2012 session, extra days where provided for business, won the


20 opposition days where provided for allocated, a further 14 on


allotted days provided. Mr Speaker, we need certainty, the Government is


not provided for in opposition day before the summer recess, making the


earliest opposition day in September 20 17. This means a staggering eight


months, nearly as long as the time it takes to have a baby, with every


single opposition day providing vital scrutiny. The last day was on


the 20th of January. At the same point in the Parliamentary session


in 2010-12, the opposition was granted three opposition days and


five any 2015 session. We need to be clear at business questions last


week, the Leader of the House that in response to a business question,


not to me, though I did ask, that a date was offered in September. Can I


say that I was not aware of this opposition day, whether it is to the


usual channels or suspects, so we do need to clarify what a session is.


It is now two years, but we would not expect one year's worth to be


allocated over those two years. Why is this important? Today is the 18th


day the new parliament has been setting, so far legislation has only


been discussed on foreign those days and foreign total of just 13 hours.


Decisions have to be made on important matters that affect our


country. I will give way. She says is sessions such last one


year. Why then in 1997 and 98 when it with 18 months whether only 20


days? 2001, only 20 days. 2005, 18 months, where there are only 20


days? Clearly the honourable member was


not listening, because it was not standing orders, and the comment has


extended it. Why is this important? Decisions have to be made on


important matters that affect our country. So far the Government has


been pushed to give us an answer. I will give an example who had to have


an amendment to the Queen's speech. It had to be secured an emergency


debate on contaminated blood to set up an enquiry that the Government


only conceded to just before the start of the debate. I have asked


the Leader of the House several times for a debate on the statutory


instrument which had been prayed against, Social Security personal


independence regulations and the higher education regulations, number


1025 and 1026. Time is given on the 19th of April, given the


interruption, no time has been given for the debate. Those continuing


best it is in the next academic year, the failure of this Government


to allow a debate and a vote on the regulations has created bring


uncertainty, so can be Leader of the House confirm that the regulations


have not been enacted and there will be no increase for students in


September, because in part five schedule two of the higher education


and research act, it states that for any increases in the high amount of


tuition fees, it would be necessary that each house of Parliament has


passed a resolution. That has not been enacted yet, so has the


Government sneaked this in under another act and betrayed our young


people? This Government is just not working, there has been no justice


for the 1950s women raised by those, many of MPs have raised this issue


and many on the other side because we need a debate and a vote about


motion on the health service, 22% fall in messing applications, where


is the third tree of health said today, with 12,000 surgical


procedures on children and young people have been cancelled last


year, an increase of 35%. And now GPs are charging for visits. That is


busily an end to the NHS as we know it. Mr Speaker, a decision has to be


made on the Swansea tidal lagoon before the end of July. I have a


letter that has been signed by 107 members on all sides asking backed


the Henry review should be put into effect. I did raise it at business


questions as well. Now that the EU bill has been published, a number of


statutory instruments will flow from that Bill. Section seven, eight and


nine all say that a minister of the Crown made by regulations make such


provision as the Minister considers appropriate. Ministers having the


power to do what they want. The Secretary of State for Exiting the


European Union deflects base. He said if it statutory instrument is


before the house, the House of Commons decides whether it is


debated and that smack he said it is a quality House of Commons will stop


patronisingly, he called it a statutory instrument which can be


debated and voted on. The Secretary of State thinks we should be


debating. When was the last time the Leader of the House spoke to the


user to staple leaving beat you. This is not working. You're going to


get the same answer, that the Speaker is going to get you that it


is up to me whether I give way or not. And I want to proceed. The


questions of days allocated for private members bills, 13 have been


allocated for one year up until November 20 18. That is over 18


months. Even through the current session lasts for two years. Why


have they not been allocated? Unless the parliament is scared of the


opposition, baggage debates... Mr Speaker, I repeat the Prime Minister


's words through debate and discussion, these are the hallmarks


for democracy, but it seems the Cabinet are too busy trying to push


out. The Government needs to know that for a democracy to thrive,


citizens of this country needs to have faith in their MPs to represent


their views and not to be disenfranchised. It is vital for


democracy to have debates when required by convention and for the


opposition to set out what the opposition stands for.


The electrode leads to see us at work, see the rhetoric turned into


action. I'm going to proceed. If the government truly believe in the rule


of law, where the parliament, the executive and the judiciary all play


their part in upholding democracy, then the Leader of the House has to


honour the interpretation of standing orders, clarify them, grant


debates, uphold conventions in this session. Mr Speaker, the key


question, is this in the public interest? And the answer is a


resounding yes. The question is as on the order


paper. But the Leader of the House speak?


Thank you. I'm really pleased to have the opportunity to speak in


this debate and I know you have granted it with your usual focus on


ensuring that backbench voices can always be heard. And also in


handling the creative tension between backbenchers and the


government's right to schedule its own business and I'm sure the


temptation to be a bit teary after the example of Centre Court


yesterday will never overtake you. But we are all grateful to you for


granting this debate which really gives me the chance to see that the


business bought for word to this house since the general election is


quite simply business as usual. I will expand on that, as you would


expect. As always happens after a general election, the house is


getting itself in order so that business can run smoothly. Many


important debates have already taken place. Last week we had a vital


debate on the Grenfell Tower inquiry. Any powerful points from


eight -- many powerful points were made from members on all sides. This


week we have been debating about eradicating the evil of drug abuse.


And we are scheduled to have a debate on the intimidation of


candidates in the general election, abuse that attacks the democratic


process. These seem to me to be examples of the Parliamentary


process working well with lots of opportunities for debate. The


opposition would do well to explain to the house which of these debates


they consider to be unimportant to the millions in the country who are


relying on us to improve their lives. And delighted to.


Grateful. When I raise the issue that I did, the response at business


questions was we have to be innovative. If we have no backbench


time or opposition days. If there is a refusal to have a vote on a


motion, how can this important issue of concern not just to me and


honourable members on this site and that side, how on earth can we are


this issue and seek to have a result?


I'm delighted that they have already had five debates on this important


issue. During the Queen's Speech, there were six days of debate when


the opposition chose the subjects they to debate. They have been


plenty of opportunities to debate whatever the opposition wanted. In


addition, urging government legislation has been introduced,


including the atoll bill. There are further Queen's Speech debates to be


brought forward. The bottom line is that the


government has essentially half the number of days that the opposition


can choose Soho is that good for democracy?


That is simply not true and I will come onto that if he will just give


me the chance. Will she take no lectures from the


party opposite, the party that when in government reduced prime


ministers Question Time for twice a week and introduced the regular


guillotining of bills, thereby reducing debating time.


He is exactly right to raise these points. I want to be positive and


talk about what we are doing. We have been mindful of backbenchers


and as requested by the chair that the Backbench Business Committee we


have rescheduled some of the debates that were agreed before dissolution.


I'm pleased that we have already found the time for those debates,


some of them, including an Israel Palestine debate.


With regard to his intervention, isn't it the case that when Prime


Minister's Questions was changed, there was no change in time because


the 215 minute sessions were consolidated into 130 minute session


which no regularly lasts 45 minutes, so there is more time than ever.


I would agree that Prime Minister's Questions has become a lengthy


experience which is all the better for. Collections of the committees


themselves will take place as soon as possible. The house will also


know that setting phrases have been announced. Mr Speaker, given the


outbreak affected by the opposition, you'd be forgiven for thinking that


the Red Hat -- there had been no opportunities at all for them to


have their voices heard. In addition to the 60s given to the Queen's


Speech out of the 18 days in this term, so 40%, we're topics were of


course chosen by the opposition, there have been to debates


understanding order 24, six urging questions, 14 adjournment debates in


this chamber, 15 departmental oral question times, 16 oral statements,


dreadful debates in Westminster Hall and of course I'm sure the shadow


leader would not want to forget the feisty business session questions we


have had in this chamber. So it is certainly not the government's fault


of the opposition has failed to make good use of these many


opportunities. They will already be aware that an opposition Day debate


has been offered by the usual channels for after the summer recess


in September. I'm grateful for her giving way. She


says that the committees will be elected in due course. The main


opposition party have carried out their duties today, home of ten --


housing can we expect the government to do so?


As soon as is a land within the normal time frame. Making comparison


with 20 and 15 -- 2015 general election, similar amount of


opposition days have been held. But the general election in 2015 was in


May, not in June. Between the Queen's Speech on the 8th of June


this year and the summer recess, there will only have been 18 sitting


days -- 18 sitting days. Let's look at our record versus when they were


in government. Let's use their assumptions that each session should


be one year and each year there should be 20 opposition days. On the


reckoning, opposition parties between 1987 and 2010, when Labour


were in office, where short by 45 opposition days. By the same


calculation using their assessment, between 2010 and today, the


opposition had one more day than their allocation.


It is a bit rich of the Leader of the House to see, to give us the


number of days between the Queen's Speech and the recess since they


give us the date of the recess and a delayed the Queen's Speech. In 2015,


there were five days. She is talking through a hole in her head.


What struck me... It may be a mistake case of mistaken identity


but I heard a Somerset voice saying order. Whether that was in good


taste is a matter for people's judgment. The Leader of the House is


a robust character and I think she is unfazed.


Just as a point of fact, the tears on my highs in Centre Court


yesterday were tears of joy for the greatest of all time.


And I felt sure that if you were to feel emotional today it would also


be tears of joy so I am not inconsistent. He may be technically


correct but he is extremely rude. In the extended Parliamentary session


of 2010 and 2012 we provided extra days for Private Members' Bills. The


standing orders set out that they were matters for parties to agree


on. They have been elected just as quickly as in previous


administrations. It seems that this debate is


depending descending into a pointless debate about what may or


may not have happened in the past. Surely it is possible to get to an


agreement. It is right that we get the opportunity to the opposition to


hold the government to account. We have got it to session rather than a


one-year session saw in broad equivalents they could get the same


amount of reply days. He is right. That is what we are


talking about which is why I opened my remarks by saying that this is


exactly what Mac absolutely business as usual.


Does she agree that this debate about debates is potentially eating


into the time to talk about the very serious issue of intimidation of


Parliamentary candidates in their selection? I see that members


opposite are sniggering but do they not take democracy as seriously as


me? I'm deterrent concerned that we are eating into the time for this


debate to talk about our diaries. She is exactly right. This is a


debate about processes, not material things or things our constituents


care about. In terms of respecting Parliamentary supremacy, something


that I know is dear to you, Mr Speaker, let's look at the


performance of my party versus the opposition. Who was at that created


the Backbench Business Committee in 2010? My party. Who was it that


brought in elections to select committees? My party. Who introduced


the eve edition system? My party. -- the e-petition system. My party has


done more. The government has formally responded to 264 petitions


and 20 of them have been scheduled for debate. The government has


responded to 162 urging questions in this house since 2015. The Sergeant


debate as a result of party politics at its worst. -- this urgent debate.


I don't believe people were voting for petty time wasting by a Labour


Party. All the opposition is doing is talking about process when what


is important is policy. The opposition say they want to talk


about tuition fees so let us talk about them. We are committed to


supporting all young people to reach their full potential, whether that


is going to university, starting an apprenticeship or taking a


qualification. Young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are now


going to university at a record rate, up 42% since 2009. But Labour


are in a mess over the pledge they made to students just seven days


before the general election, a pledge they have no admitted would


cost many billions and was just an invention according to the Shadow


Chancellor. These should be upfront about their plans. Is it still the


plan to cancel student debt or a pre-election scan? Perhaps he would


like to talk about the economy. On this site, we have shown


determination to live within our means so that the next generation


are not saddled with the debts of 30 years of Labour recklessness. We


inherited the largest peacetime deficit over from the party


opposite. It. This is deferred it is about


opposition days and the Government to account. If you want a debate,


why did she not allow them then actually diverging from what this


debate is today? The honourable gentleman is aware that the


frontbenchers are usually accorded a modest and latitude in developing


their arguments, hence I have allowed a modest latitude, but I


think the Leader of the House will shortly return to the thrust of the


matter of the debate, not what might have been under debate, but what is


under debate, and I know she will return to that. I do not think there


is a further. It is said that she believes that this debate we're


having now is completely irrelevant and a far more important one will be


later in the day I just wonder because the number of Conservative


members who stood to catch your eye earlier, whether you think they're a


conservative members who would like to take part in this debate the


debate they had scheduled on tonight?


There are lots of members who want to speak today and in this debate,


which can last for a maximum of three hours, there are lots of


Government backbenchers who wish to speak. Keen to accommodate both


backbenchers and opposition backbenchers and I am keen to


accommodate would-be maiden speakers, and if we could now


minimise points of frustration and focus on the debate, I think that


would be beneficial to all concerned.


Mr Speaker, I was going to continue to talk about the way we sought to


improve our ability to live within our means and the amazing employment


record of this Government as an effort to get the opposition to


focus on what really matters, but I will never the less not bother to


talk about employment, but I will continue to the opposition's desire


to consider process. Did she know it a glorious irony


that the opposition have called for an emergency debate is interesting,


if they wish it to be curtailed's I think my honourable friend speaks


for all of us in his observation. I have outlined the many


opportunities allowed to debate in this house. In four days, the house


rises for recess, but not before many opportunities to put their


views on the record. Today we are supposed to be debating the abuse


and intimidation of candidates during the general election. Members


on both sides of this house have been victims of violent abuse from


anarchists and have left activists, but Labour are obviously not


interested. It is unlikely there will be any time for that critical


debate to take place today. I sincerely hope that the Leader of


the Opposition, having prevented this, all want to condemn in the


strongest language be frightening and intimidating abuse endured by


many on this side of the house as many as many on his own benches.


This Government is working towards a brighter future for our great


country, we are bringing forward the EU bill and negotiating our leading


of the union through the will of the British people, looking to make a


success of Brexit and putting a strong programme and putting strong


legislation embrace introducing measures that will improvement or


health provision, blobby industries of tomorrow and stamp out extremism


and terrorism. These are issues... Point of order. I had to take it on


trust. I note we were in deep in


conversation, but we are now turning back to issues... There is a long


list of what this Government has achieved, if she wants to have these


debates properly, why did she not give the opposition debates to do


them and be voted on. I get the point that the honourable


gentleman has made and as far as I can tell, I hope I sense correctly,


the Leader of the House is likely reaching this as there are many


members that wish to speak and there is none the labour of woodland


between the time taken by the opposition spokesperson and the


Government spokesperson. The honourable lady is in order, but as


they say, I imagine she is nearing the conclusion of her remarks.


Rather than gracious of the honourable gentleman to yell from a


sedentary position. He could always adopt a gentle Burl which seems more


seemly. Members of the opposition are


certainly not being very charming this evening. All I was saying is I


was trying to outline some of the issues that really matter to the


people of our great country and it is in the interest of our country


that this Government provides certainty, continuity and control as


we forge a new and successful future for the whole of the United Kingdom.


I hope colleagues agree that safety welfare and prosperity of this


country should be our priority and I will work with all willing


colleagues across the house to achieve this.


Thank you. We very much welcome this debate and


we share the concerns of this parliamentary session of the next


two years. We agree that we need priority about the scheduling,


particularly backbench business and opposition business. Since we have


come back, the pace of the normal arrangements have been put back into


place have been unsatisfactory. We now only have three full days of


this parliamentary session before the long summer recess and we still


do not have the select committees of this house up and running, nor do we


know the arrangements for the standing committees of the house and


the statutory instrument of it and given they will be particularly


burdened with the repeal Bill, we will need some clarity and certainty


about the committees. I think I heard earlier that neither


the SNP Labour Party had yet constituted their own members for


these select committee. They have only


just constituted. I would therefore not be possible to constitute...


Until very recently we about to go into recess.


I'm to the honourable lady because I can say that we are ready to supply


the best membership of the select committee and I believe the Labour


Party are in a position to do so. You may be generous offer images


that you would help facilitate any political party in this house but


seem to have any difficulty with arranging its membership for select


committees. I do not know if the Conservative Party have approached


you in order to make sure that promises have filled because what we


have seen is not the Labour Party or the SNP holding up the creation of


the select committee, it is the Conservative Party. Please,


Conservative Party, make use of this very kind offer from the Speaker of


the house. Could it be that so many honourable


members on this side of the house want to take part in the select


committees and therefore an election is quiet and perhaps not the same


interest on the other side. I say to the honourable gentleman


candidly, get on with it. You should have these committees up and running


before the summer recess in and give you cannot do it yourself, take the


offer from the Speaker and make sure this gets arranged. I will give way.


Can I say to my honourable friend that we have hard elections on the


election they besides, but if the honourable gentleman thinks that


they will have difficulty in arranging them, we could provide


election observers and tell us for the Conservative Party if necessary.


I'm grateful to the honourable gentleman because I think that is a


good suggestion. How about we take use of the advantage of the office


of the Speaker, we could send observers along, we could help


visibility the Conservatives to help facilitate this. Let's get on with


it. We have three days away from summer recess.


The SNP were granted the chairs of two select committees, but I cannot


understand when it comes to give the parties, all the members were


entitled to vote, but it seems the SMP which is given one candidate,


can explain why? Can I say to the honourable


gentleman that is because there were superb candidates. Particularly the


one that was nominated for the chair of the Scottish select committee,


that is why that has been the case. The honourable gentleman has left


out the amazing ability... It amazes made because how could I


forget my honourable friend and forever grateful of him for


reminding me of this. Just to say that the boats are still


being cast in the Labour Party for members of the Foreign Affairs


Committee, and if any members have not yet voted, they have until


8:30pm. I'm grateful for that intervention.


It must've been a particularly good intervention that they made. It is


not as if this Government has been over exercised and energised thus


far, and it is perhaps unfavourably, this Parliament has already been


daubed zombie parliament, but I think that comparison would give the


flesh eating undead a bad name. This is turbo-charged political zombie


is, that is to be curious type of zombie, because if you look at them,


it not only the caring of flesh, they are starting to consume


themselves. What passes for discourse, normal discourse on the


Secretary of State and Whitehall department is cowed briefing. When


you do nothing, bad stuff happens. This is a Government at war with


itself. They all jostle to be the next captain of the SS Tory Titanic.


They're trying to do this with Brexit, but before we get on with


it, you leave that the Brexiteers Perry bunch of pirates, what a great


smarmy pirate is. I have this image of a mixture of Captain Pugwash and


Jack Sparrow re-enacting the battle of the Thames with Nigel Farage and


Bob Geldof, but shiver my timbers and pieces about, I would not mind


being one myself. And then we have the member forward with Green who


believes the plot should just shut up for goodness' sake. That would


deprive the house of so much value. It was also said that members of the


Cabinet should drink less prosecco. He was me thinking cheap prosecco,


surely the only finest champagne would be good enough for my


Conservative friends opposite. But according to the Transport


Secretary, there is nothing to see here and we are not a bunch of


clones. Well, thank goodness for that. Mr Speaker, there is no wonder


that they do not want scrutiny when there is such a matter of chaos and


turmoil. I agree that the enthusiasm of so much of this on the public. I


was at my surgeries this weekend and I don't banners saying that what


they wanted was more opposition days for the Labour Party. But this is


the important, I think the constituents expect us to come down


here to ensure that we arrange the optimal conditions for debate and


scrutiny and we get on with the job and ensure the Government is held to


account. We are in a very different type of Parliament, maybe that will


in skis the behaviours are not getting this back in place. I do not


think since the 1970s there has been such an certainty. Not since the


days of Callaghan and Wilson have we had that belief. The Fixed-term


Parliaments Act has proven to be the biggest waste of Parliamentary time


possibly in Parliamentary history, supposed to give certainty, the


scheduling of debates, it was always going to fail when there was a


Government to want to have an early election who would... Who would not


be able to resist holding that particular condition. We therefore


have a parliament in Government on political life support, always


requiring emergency treatment and always honourable to the infection


of events as it tries to define some purpose and meaning. The condition


of this Government is all it's own fault. Hubris to quit and


unnecessarily calling an early election to try and take advantage


of what has happened is a crisis of chaos in the labour opposition which


has now returned home, embarrassed and diminished and chaotic and is


all their own fault. This is now almost definitely a house of


minorities and legislation in the way we construct our business in


this house must reflect this and we have too make sure we get


arrangements properly in place in order to ensure the new political


climate across this house is observed. That is why it is


disappointing the Government instead of rising properly to the challenges


has done everything to frustrate, delay and towards the creation of


all the arrangements are essential for proper scrutiny in these new


conditions. The main means of this and achieving it is to have a


programme that is as opaque and contentious as possible so we


possibly get bored and don't take any great concern and interest in


this and no votes go through Parliament. The only one that is


contentious and the big deal of this Parliamentary term will be Brexit.


What they have less labour opposition that practically agree


with everything the government want to secure and achieve with this hard


Brexit. When it comes to the main theme of this hard Brexit, with


leaving the single market, the customs union, ending the freedom of


movement, the Labour opposition practically agree with the


government on everything. What we have therefore is the difficulty for


this government to get to its Brexit business on top of a legislative


programme that is slow soul like it is practically all peak. What we


what we have is this appalling deal that the government struck with the


Democratic Unionist Party. This was agreed behind closed doors and the


house has not had the opportunity to debate this deal, scrutinise it,


have its consequences considered, not least in terms of how it turns


normal funding allocations on their head. This is a deal designed to by


the government its majority and has unfortunately set the tone for this


parliament and refined their contentious approach. Also the


appalling and divisive English votes for English laws procedure. It is


opposed and loathed by every other political party outside the Tories.


It no longer secures a Parliamentary majority. It is also ridiculous that


this government relies on a party that is subject to the constraints


of EVEL to get its policies through. Let's see if we can secure a


solution which can agree with consensus and debate. Let's get


something that brings property is -- proper scrutiny for all the United


Kingdom. We need to get down to business. It is simply unacceptable


that we won't have the select committee set up soon. We've had an


exchange on the logjam of securing these select committees and I hope


that the Leader of the House takes this seriously and we can get on and


do this. We have to have standing committees in place. Because we


don't, it means the committee stages of bills cannot be considered and


the government has to bring those stages to the whole house. The girls


have now been subject to that procedure. It is purely unacceptable


that this is going to go on. After this debate, we're looking at


another statutory committee. It is clearly unsatisfactory.


As we all know, we've been through the process of election where if a


prospective candidate doesn't get in on time then tough, the election


goes on without them. They don't postpone the election of the


candidates can sort themselves out. Is that something they could look at


in terms of select committees? That of the government don't put their


names on committees, the committees meet without them?


I think that is an elegant solution to a solvable problem and I'm


grateful to him for suggesting it. Maybe we will get some action over


the next few days to resolve this. Correct me if I'm wrong, the reason


why we haven't got the standing committees and running is that there


is a problem with arithmetic. My understanding is that the government


have nine places, the Labour opposition have seven places and we


have two places, which properly reflects the political arithmetic in


this house, reflecting that this house is a house of minority. That


means that the government would have to work a bit harder in order to get


business through. What would be clearly unacceptable and what seems


to be happening and I hope it stops soon, is that the government seem to


be subverting the committee stage of legislation and bringing it either


to the whole house here in the chamber and doing all its amendments


in the report stage. That would be unacceptable and stand against


everything that we understand that the normal business of Parliament.


He is making an interesting point because everybody knows that the


most inadequate part of the legislative process is report stage


with the government can put down amendments which are never even


debated. Absolutely right. She probably


shares my concerns about if that was to pass and how inadequate the


report stage can be. These types of intricate and important pieces of


legislation required to be scrutinised properly in proper


committees of this house and it is incumbent on this house to make sure


that is in place. Any attempt to subvert the normal arrangement of


bills going to committees is unacceptable and I hope house can


deal with this. I'm almost disappointed that the member for...


Chris Bryant isn't here. I think you were elected before me, Mr Speaker,


but I remember the election in 2001 and the response given that in 2001


it was a June election. We had all the committees in place even though


it was a June election. It took place on 7th of June. The Queen's


Speech was held on 20th June and all the select committees were in place


and functioning by the 19th of July. The reason for that is in those days


it was a stitch up by the whips. Now we elect the members. That is the


key difference. I'm grateful because he reminds me


and I'm sure he will remember this as well of something that happened


during the establishment of committees in 2001. It was a stitch


up by the whips at that point and he will remember when they tried to


remove two people from the chair of select committees which actually


held at the creation of the select committees that year but we still


managed to get them in place. There is no reason whatsoever why this


can't happen. The example 2001 is a very good one. They were all in


place even though that year was a June election. Can we also see we


agree with the honourable lady in terms of opposition days and time


set aside for backbench business. It looks like backbench business and


private members business will probably be about the most


interesting features of this Parliamentary session, given that we


are unlikely... And I can hear my friend who has a particularly good


Private Members' Bill that you should come along and listen to. But


this is probably going to be the most interesting business given the


laxity that we are going to see from members so we have to have proper


time and members were back -- time given to this.


Is it not a pointless exercise unless the government reforms how


bills go through this house? And get their own members to stop stymieing


the private members' bills. He is spot on and I share his


frustration about the way private members' bills go through this


house. I remember the bill from John Nicholson was stopped by government.


We had the necessary numbers but it was still stymied by this


government. The way that certain members of this house do all they


can to filibuster Private Members' Bills does a disgrace on this house


because our constituents expect better. If you are lucky enough to


security Private Members' Bill, it is right and proper that they are


properly debated and I hope we can reform that. We support what the


honourable lady said about private members sitting and that should be


doubled and I hope the government does this. There have to be proper


arrangements and understandings about time allocated for opposition


days. We are entitled to three opposition days per Parliamentary


session. We expect 6/2 years and I hope the house will be able to


confirm this. We have to get all these things out because the


arrangements are unsatisfactory. I saw her usual channels is working


and seems to be misunderstanding about the expectations of


Parliament. I would encourage an open house as much as possible to


try and get a better grasp of the new reality of this house, this


house of minorities, the fact that nobody has a majority. This zombie


Parliament must get up and working. It must be allowed to do its work.


It must allow us to do the work that constituents sent us here today. For


goodness' sake, let's get on with it and do it.


Maiden speech. Thank you for calling me to speak in


this important debate but I am disappointed at the time not being


allowed in the intimidation debate but I will try to give my own


experiences. It is a great privilege to be delivering my maiden speech


representing my own constituency of Angus. I would like to take this


opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor who serve the people of


Angus over his years in this house. He had a prominent campaign to save


the post office and took on the role of Chief Whip for his party. I wish


him all the best in his future endeavours. It would be remiss if I


also did not mention the previous Conservative and Unionist MP for


Angus. The late Lord was not just a great voice for his area but also


had a remarkable legal career. The diverse constituency of Angus


nestled North of Dundee and south of Aberdeen sure has the most dramatic


coastline and picturesque lens to the north-west. The five main


towns... There are a number of villages and communities throughout.


It is the residents who have suffered most significantly to the


lack of mobile and broadband coverage. With current roll-out


below the national average, it is unsurprising that this has come up


in every constituency surgery I have had to date. I will work to ensure


residents and businesses are not left behind because of where they


choose to reside and operate. From my agricultural roots, I understand


its importance to the area. We provide 30% of the country's


potatoes and 25% of soft fruit, so agriculture is a significant


contributor to the local economy. Angus is home to many successful


projects in the versification including renewables, to the first


potato -based vodka. It incorporates a famous residents, the childhood


home of the late Queen Mother. I recently attended one of the many


excellent Proms with thousands of people from across Scotland.


Attractions in Angus entice tourists from far and wide. People golf on


some of the best-known courses or take part in outdoor pursuits.


Montrose port will welcome its first cruise ship, due to dock next year,


a further boost for our industries. Nevertheless, I'm incredibly aware


that there is a power of work to be done to support the current offering


and to ensure that nobody slips into North Aberdeenshire without testing


it Forfar Brady en route. Businesses throughout Angus range from local to


global, from engineering to manufacturing, oil and gas as well


as textiles and are highly regarded food and drink offering. A host of


businesses work in key sectors including pharmaceuticals giant


GlaxoSmithKline, textiles manufacturable keys, Mackay 's in


Arbroath and a textile innovator and also design innovators. They are


also supported by strong networks of local businesses which are


collectively the lifeblood of our local economy, providing the jobs


that anger so desperately needs. As government, we must support wherever


possible, enabling with prosperity and longevity. Angus has much to be


proud of. However, like many places there are concerns with constituents


asked that I stand up to represent. The rate of unemployment especially


amongst youth lies above national average due to several factors.


There are so positivity with new oilfields emerging, but steady


decline in recent years has had a large impact on livelihoods of


residents and businesses throughout Angus. I along with my north-east


colleagues will work together for the industry wherever possible to


support them going forward. As we face the challenge of Brexit, I'm


confident the Scottish farming and fishing communities have the


resilience to remain one of the key pillars in our economy. One of the


greatest opportunities for Brexit is the chance to build a support system


that works for Angus and four works for all areas of our United Kingdom.


The political landscape in Angus has demonstrated a clear shift in recent


years. In 2014, the referendum on independence, we recorded an


above-average no vote and in the last three election, a votes went to


the Scottish Conservative and Unionist parties. Strong messages to


Nicola Sturgeon and the SMP that the time for constitution troublemaking


is over. Make no mistake, my Scottish my Scottish Conservatives,


Scottish Labour and Scottish Liberal Democrat colleagues RS patriot as my


Scottish National Party colleagues. But now we need to ask them to


remove that threat of uncertainty over Scotland's economy and people,


no ifs, no bugs, a second devices independence referendum should be


taken off the table. I remain optimistic... For the future of


Angers and the extensive deals which will support those who live and work


in Angus. As part of the 1.8 billion planned investment, there will be


key programmes for Angus such as the hospital fuelled future plan,


creating major decommissioning centre in Scotland and ambition


investment quarter form Montrose to the A90 to enable the delivery of an


infrastructure allowing major economic growth. I look forward to


working with the UK Government and all stakeholders to drive forward


the city deal and make sure delivers for Angus. As the member of


Parliament for Angus, my mission is to ensure I am the strands of local


champions, representing my home turf with the greatest of integrity and


never with complacency. As a staunch unionist, I will continue to fight


to keep Scotland as part of our wonderful United Kingdom. Quite


similar, we are stronger together and weaker apart. I would also like


to make clear that I am here to help all my constituents, no matter how


or if they voted. I look forward to standing up for Angus and for


Scotland in this chamber on many more occasions to come.


Thank you, and very warm congratulations to the honourable


lady. We look forward to hearing her and getting to know her in this


house. I think the honourable lady made


what could be termed a model maiden speech. She was robust when


necessary, she was fluent, humorous, generous to her predecessors and she


stood up for what she sees as the vital interests of her constituency.


I am sure we all look forward to hearing further contributions from


the honourable lady in the future. Can also thank my honourable friend


for Walsall for securing this debate because I think it is timely and


necessary. During my time in this House, the role of members of


Parliament has been seen as supporting or opposing the


Government of the day. People do not always slavishly follow the whip in


this house, and rightly so on occasions. Occasionally issues of


conscience have to be decided, for example an end of life decisions


cell research. We vote on issues like that. On other occasions, for


example in our relationship with the European Union, people's views are


perhaps too distinctive to be easily put within the confines of party


loyalty. As we know, the outcome of the last general election has


changed the political arithmetic of this house. Until such time there is


a further general election, the potential power that each of us


holds, including the honourable lady for Angus, is greatly than ever been


than I have sat in this House. The two questions I want to pose today


are, first, are we willing to use that power to bring about greater


fairness and address some social industries says which I shall refer


to shortly? Can we look not that what we might have been in the past


as a House but what we could become's? Before I go into some of


the issues, and I will be brief because I know you think we need to


stick to the issue at hand more closely, I want to say about party


allegiance and how that works in the context of this house. I have spent


all of my adult life in the Labour Party and I remain so because I


share the values of my party on equality and social justice. But


that is not to say that as a party we have a monopoly on virtue. I know


there are members in all parts of the House who to some degree share


those values. There is one further point I want to make of a political


nature, because the Government has no majority, the usual argument


about having a mandate concerned in their manifesto is weak to the point


of becoming irrelevant. I want to say a word about the honourable and


right Honourable members on the DUP bench. Since entering into a


supplying confidence arrangement with the Conservative Party, and


perhaps in some ways understandably they have been heavily criticised in


some quarters. But agreement does not cover every man measure that may


be brought forward, and knowing some of the DUP members as I do, I am


confident that on some issues we can gain cooperation with them and


certainly on some of the issues I feel Stanley about, I think they


will share a similar outlook. So it is not a given that on every


occasion the Government can rely on their support. I want to refer


briefly to two issues. One of which has been referred to already by my


honourable friend the shadow Leader of the House and that is the


injustice of women born in the 1950s and the aid at which they are


entitled to their state pension. Many others macro on all sides of


this House and amongst the DUP at as well support the women against state


pension and inequality campaign and I believe that if we are a House are


resolved on that subject, we could bring about a fair solution.


Secondly, I hope we can all agree that the growing level of inequality


in our country is both unfair and corrosive. Wherever we look, whether


it in access to housing, the life chances of young people or


insecurity of employment, we see the stark reality of those consequences,


reliance on food banks, growing homelessness, and unacceptable


regional disparities and income support for public services. It also


means we need to take a more generous approach to public sector


pay. This House of Commons, if we can adapt to the new realities of


our power and influence can try to resolve those problems, but in order


to realise that power and influence, we need to take more control over


our procedures and get more agency in the legislative process. That


means that in my view in power in select committees to provide white


papers and draft bills, it will mean giving the Brits reach a committee


control that by giving deepest reject committee -- to give the


siege committed more power. It will mean the Government are held


accountable by some motions carried by this House with cross-party


support. In other words, they should be bound by some decisions of this


house in some circumstances. Finally, I believe the will support


on taking the response of dummy financial -- it will be for them to


put the argument on each occasion and it will be for numbers of this


house to assume their own responsibility for the decisions


that they take. In the recent past, the reputation and standing of


politicians in western democracy, not least our own, have fallen


alarmingly. The consequences with which we see and the rejection of


long-standing political certainties. But the arithmetic of this


Parliament presents us with an opportunity to take our reputations


both collectively and individually into our own hands. Do we have the


confidence to realise what we could become? Surely we have a duty to at


least try. It is with great pleasure I pay


tribute to my honourable friend, the member for Angus in delivering what


was a superb maiden speech. It is a great pleasure to see sitting in her


place today and I look forward to further such contributions from her


in the months and years to come. It is a fantastic start to your


Parliamentary career. I fear today's debate has been somewhat of a missed


opportunity. No institution, let alone Parliament, should be set


in... We need to have a strong Parliamentary institution, and if it


is to be a strong Parliamentary institution, it should evolve,


should have adult conversations about the way it conducts itself.


There are very strong arguments for change in the way that the


Parliamentary business is scheduled, but I'm afraid that the honourable


lady force Scots pack for Walsall South, nor did the member for North


first shirt either. I think that is a great shame because the date of


the improvements in this place and around scheduling is what our


constituents would expect us to cover, unlike some of the honourable


members were implying earlier. It is what we should discuss and it should


focus on what would make us more productive and what would reduce the


costs of Parliament which are still considerable and not to be ignored.


Perhaps the opposition should have focused this position on real


change, change that is being recommended by publications such as


the good Parliament report and the work of the all-party Parliamentary


group women in Parliament. I will focus briefly on some of the changes


which I hope the opposition front brake should and the Leader of the


House can consider. The first is a division hour which would give all


of us as parliamentarians a lot more certainty about the way we can plan


our days. At the moment, we still suffer from a very archaic system of


voting at the end of debates which gives people a great deal of


uncertainty as to when the votes may come, particularly at the report


stage of a bill. If we have a division hour which is common in the


European Parliament, common in the Scottish parliament, that may give


us the productivity that we expect now on a regular basis from our own


constituents when they are going about their everyday work. I will


give way. She is making an excellent


suggestion. But she also agree about getting rid of an antiquated system


of working through the lobbies to vote and following other modern


system such as having a press button for members that are present?


I'm going to have to disagree on that. I think going through division


lobbies is one way that Parliament can talk to each other and become


cohesive. I would not support remote electronic voting, I think it


creates more of a team in Parliament. The idea that having a


vault at the end of the day sometimes in the wee small hours of


the morning that is going to get people and hedge. That does not give


anyone an edge. It feels like we are re-enacting the D-Day landings and


are having gorilla tactics that in my time in Parliament has never


changed the outcome of the debate. I think we should look to modernise


that way of working. That goes on to my next point which is late sittings


in this place. Again, I'm reliably told by people who have been here


longer than I have that late sittings are a part of parliamentary


life. Not as much as they used to be but still regularly we are here to


ten o'clock at night. We might not mind that but there are


consequences. Delete votes that we decide to have in this place cost


the taxpayer ?5 million over the last five years and that is in staff


costs alone. The additional costs of policing and security must double


that at least. At what point will be as a Parliament realise that sitting


until 10pm or voting at 10p on a Monday night is not an integral part


of the work that we do and that we could save money.


I will give way. This is a matter that has been


considered many times over the years but does she accept that one need


for a Monday is the need for members to travel from far corners of the


kingdom, many of which are further away from London than the honourable


Lady's constituency? He is right. I don't have the long


commute that he might have but ultimately what I'm saying is that


we could decide to continue to have debates in the evening but have the


votes earlier in the day and that would mean that Parliamentary staff


wouldn't need to be on stand-by and receive compensation for being here


in the late evening. I'm not sure I heard her properly


but was she suggesting we should have the vote before the debate is


finished? You may do that in your party but


not in our party. He will be familiar with the concept of a


deferred division and look at what has happened in Europe and Scotland.


The final point is that I'm disappointed the lady on the front


bench did not talk about the select committees. As each ear of a select


committee, as I have been for the last five years and pleased to be


re-elected to it, a great deal of the work that we do can come to


nothing as result of scheduling business in this house. My


committee's trip to the UN Convention on the rights of women


was completely scrapped as result of a 40 year -- as result of a vote


because we don't have a proxy vote. Can we talk about Parliamentary


procedure is. It is not done in the way this parliament operates in the


debate today risks obscuring that. I think it is a shame that some


members have failed to focus on these issues and I hope that the


Labour front bench whirl support some of the important changes I have


listed so that we can put forward a more modernised face for this house


and perhaps in doing that bring a wider cross-section here in the


future. We now come to a maiden speech.


Thank you for the opportunity to make my maiden speech during today's


debate. It is an important one that gets straight to the heart of the


kind of Parliament we are going to be. Is it going to be one that


stifles debate and scrutiny or one that will be accountable to its


opposition and openly democratic? I know which one constituents will


like. When I was elected 11 weeks ago, many believed I would not or


could not win. This is why it falls me with great pleasure that the


people of Battersea chose me to be the member of Parliament. It is a


huge honour and I will serve my constituents to the best of my


ability. My family played a vital role in supporting me during the


campaign and I will forever be grateful for the sacrifices they


made to help me get elected. Before I go on, I would like to pay tribute


to my predecessor, Jane Ellison, for the work that she did in halting the


practice of female genital mutilation. I don't share her


policies but admire her work in this area. We have both had the privilege


of representing Battersea, the vibrant and important part of south


London with a strong history. Battersea is growing and has so much


to offer. The iconic Battersea Power Station, that symbol of municipal


pride, is reopening along the River. Our train station has more trains


running through it than any in Western Europe. From the kids of


Battersea Park to the sunbathers of Clapham Common. But it is the people


themselves that make this such a wonderful place and to whom I almost


thanks. No one should be more surprised that we in Battersea are


one of the most well-educated constituencies and take our policies


seriously. I want to make sure that these changes benefit everyone.


There was not only an increase in the number of young voters but in


people turning out for the first time. With good reason. In housing,


private rents have soared. The cost of housing is it beyond reach of


most people. It is a scandal that people under the age of 35 have been


frozen out of homeownership. Too many people are confronted with


housing pressures that are getting worse. It does not have to be this


way. In Battersea, we have some of the oldest council housing. They


sought to provide homes for decent working people. This spirit needs to


be brought back. I'm standing on the shoulder of Giants. Politicians who


are radical and we're ahead of their times. In 1906, the first


working-class MP in Battersea became a government minister. It was the


ferocious John Burns. We give rise to London's first black mayor. In


1922, Battersea became the first constituency to elect an Asian


labour member of Parliament, an Indian radical. And of course we


have the heroic Anglo Irish suffragette who championed the


rights of the poor and his statue you can find in the central square


of Dodington estate. At the age of 89, her last public activity was to


address the crowd at an antifascist rally in Trafalgar Square in 1933. I


hope I have as much fire in me when I am that age. I would also like to


pay tribute to more recent Labour MPs who came before me. The


wonderful Lord Alf Dobbs, whose fight on behalf of Syrian refugees


has been an example to us all. Martin, who has championed the


rights of the Palestinian people since leaving office. We are outward


looking and internationalist. It is this spirit that I will attempt to


bring to Parliament. We face serious challenges. This was a decision my


constituents care deeply about and voted overwhelmingly against. I will


stand up for them. I will draw on that outward looking Battersea


tradition, one that values tolerance, social justice and


corporation. I was born with an involuntary movement of the eye


which has left me with a sight impairment. I have had to overcome


many barriers but I want to give a special thanks to my mum who is here


today. She made sure I had a brilliant education, a brilliant


state education. At primary school, and a headteacher thought I should


be sent to a speciality school but my mother fought to keep me in


mainstream education and I would not be the women I am today nor an


elected member of Parliament had it not been for her and, mum, I am


truly grateful. I had been a disability rights campaigner and it


believed that people with disabilities like myself should have


the right to participate in society equally. The right to a good


education, the right to travel, the right access to public transport. An


important issue close to my heart is the employment access to those with


disability. The disparity is not good enough and we need to change


that. Over the last seven years, policies on Social Security and


social care have disproportionately affected disabled people. When we


discuss all these matters in this house, it is important that we


understand and empathise with the real people who will be affected by


our decisions. I am proud to be here in this chamber and I am proud to be


representing the people Battersea. Congratulations to the new member


for Battersea on her maiden speech and may I also welcome her to her


place. I also congratulate the member for Angus on her excellent


speech and for its wit and wisdom and including its focus on


connectivity to her constituency. Democracy is the system of


processing conflict and in this house that lies at the heart of our


debates. This is truly what we have come to this place to do. The mother


of all parliaments. It is absolutely right that MPs of all colours are


able to hold the government to account. I have found since I


arrived in 2015 that there has been plentiful opportunity to do this.


The calling of this debate by the official opposition has had very


little to do with representing constituencies and I think it is to


do with political point scoring. This is truly a case of navel-gazing


by the opposition and using pressures Parliamentary time to do


this. A debate on debates, exactly what my constituents and bears will


feel angry and aggrieved about. The reality is that standing orders do


state that there are 20 opposition days in any one session and 17 of


them for the main opposition party. In this case the Labour Party, as I


see emptying opposition benches. They have been offered the usual


opposition database through the usual channels. I did agree with the


member opposite from the SNP front bench about the voters simply not


wanting this type of debate. They do want to hear us discuss what matters


and that is jobs and opportunities, schools and the impact of Brexit


nationwide and so much more. However, it was interesting that the


honourable gentleman mentioned the frustration of this, so it is the


greatest shame that we are not able to possibly fulfil the need to


discuss the shocking incidences of nationwide abuse of candidates


during the general election. Something I raised to the Leader of


the House to a positive reception in backbench business debates. So, to


this point, it is to the wit and the wheel of members of this house to


use all the 12 at their disposal to make sure back their points and


their issues from their constituents get heard by a quarter range in and


their own persistence. Honourable and right Honourable members and


colleagues I am sure will be aware that have already been plentiful


opportunities for opposition members to make their representations in the


chamber on the of their constituents during the Queen's Speech debates


which the Labour Party had six days to choose those topics. Therefore I


join with colleagues on this side of the house and their disappointment


at the complaints about this being made to the Government. I agree with


the right honourable member from Basingstoke that this is a queue of


the great opportunity for the opposition to look at process


Radovan complains. I'm enjoying the remarks of the


honourable lady who does debate very openly, but would she not agree with


her other honourable friend, the member for Gainsborough, who pointed


out that given a two-year session was announced, anybody can see that


it is only fair play to consider getting some extra opposition days


to the opposition so it can do its constitutional job as Her Majesty 's


loyal opposition of holding the Government to account?


I think there is absolutely two points to be made. The wit and the


wisdom of members to use all the tools, and I agree, the position are


going to play every game and trick of the book and why would they not?


I have found myself in a multiplicity of debates with myself,


so I wonder how opposition members can feel so disagreed. I have been


in debates from new towns to was beat it Grenfell Tower to travel


infrastructure, school, funding and so much more since my return to this


House and I'm sorry the opposition have not found the opportunity and


brevity that my colleagues have. She makes an important point about


the attendance of some honourable members opposite. Perhaps she saw


the coverage of the Westminster debate on managing public finance


weather was almost no attendance from Riverside and great many from


this side the bench. I agree with my honourable friend.


Far from weakening our democracy, Conservatives have can strengthened


it because we have given out constituents more voices and turned


up at the debates that are there to be had. I will give way.


You refer to the Waspy issue. What we want is a veritable motion so


that she can prove she is with us and with the Waspy women. How will


she bowed when there is it double motion?


As all-party women in Parliament for nature, I feel very much sympathy


when it comes to the Waspy women, but also as we heard, Government


finances are difficult and I would like to see us finding a way to help


those most affected. I have been to make those points at every debate


when possible. We have given our constituents a chance to have a


voice. One particular area is on EE petitions, and I know that has


happened because I have found the voice of my constituents in my


inbox. I think that the ten years of operations of this has given the


chance for parliaments to reach into peoples homes and lives. Where 10


million people signing a petition and no less than 20 petitions being


scheduled for debate. This has engaged subject in this debating


chamber and I have been delighted to have that, particularly when I think


back to my time in the and equality select committee on trans-dent the


issues, and I think this Parliament is more diverse and out reaching


them people will know. The problem debates like this is we look more


enclosed. The Government has looked to ensure that the most talented MPs


from across the house get a chance to feed into in-depth quality


discussions and I congratulate all of those members who have been


elected to the select committee chairs as of this month, and indeed


by contrast, during Labour's time, we know that Government PM queues


was reduced and although the complaints were so... In fact, the


complaint was always the media was told first and the chamber second


are you do not see that from this Government. I will start to conclude


my remarks because I know we are pushed for time. Her Majesty 's


opposition today has tried to make out there is one rule for us and one


for everyone else, but we are all in this chamber defenders of democracy


and we can see that if we use all the tools and instruments that we


will have a voice for our community. So I think members opposite would do


well to listen to us on strengthening in democracy and look


to the side of the House who I think should take a very serious look at


taking a leaf out of our book and hearing from our constituents and


seeing what matters to them. I would like to start my


contribution by paying tribute to the two maiden speeches made this


evening. First of all, to the new member for Angus and just to put on


the record my agreement with her very strong comments about the need


to keep the UK together. Secondly, to my honourable friend the member


for Battersea. A very moving speech and her determination that her


mother shared and she shared in making sure that she made access to


mainstream education. I think that is a tribute to the strength of a


lovable mother, but also the disability rights movement and the


need to make sure that people with disabilities in joyful access to all


areas, so I paid review to my honourable friend. For me, this


debate is not just about the technicalities, it is about the


national interest and I think it would be so for all members of this


house to remember that on June the 8th this country decided it did not


want to give any one party the majority position and the strength


to form a majority Government. It gave Parliament the power to shape


Government policy, potentially, and hold the Government to account. It


is clear that the electorate expects this Parliament to act in the


national interest and not to behave in a way that is in any way deeply


tribal puts the interests of the other party before the interests of


the country. In that respect, I found the leader of the howls's


speech deeply disappointing. I thought the Leader of the House was


deeply tribal in her comments and was losing the House about point and


that the two points of order had to be made to get the Leader of the


House back on track. But surely it is detrimental to the interest of


this house and we have a debate about Parliamentary democracy itself


and descend into a tribal slamming match between the frontbenchers on


different aspects of Government policy or opposition policy full


stop that is not what this debate is about. It is not about a


Parliamentary game that we are playing. This is about democracy and


the ability of Parliament to hold Government to account. I to make


make a quick comment about the debate that was to have been held


tonight, the general debate on abuse of candidates in the general


election. Let me make this clear, I did make a short contribution to the


debate in Westminster Hall last week, I do believe that all it takes


for evil to prosper is for good people to do nothing. I am quite


ready to have a debate in the chamber on abuse generally in


society and abuse of politicians within political parties and outside


of them, but between them, but wouldn't not be a good idea that


members on the opposite benches would join with us on these benches


and develop a proper application to the Backbench Business Committee so


we can have that debate here which is truly based on the support on


both sides of the house such a topic to be discussed. The technicalities


that this debate is based upon are quite clear. It is about the number


of opposition day debates and backbench business debates and


Private Members Bills days which has been barely mentioned tonight


and it is also about the timeliness of the first opposition day debates.


I have looked at the House of Commons library research on this and


it is quite clear that this has a strong case. The records are


absolutely clear. The first session of the 1997 - 1998 Government which


lasted 18 months, there were 38 opposition day debates, 38. And the


average in terms of the first opposition day debates after a


general election in the last 7-8 years has been 22 days, 22 days, 14


days. On that basis, we should have had that debate.


Following what she was saying closely, however strong the case the


opposition has made, does the honourable lady think it is wise to


ask for an emergency debate on a debate rather than on a specific and


urgent topic? I thank the honourable member for


the intervention at point has already been made this evening, but


the point is we are not getting the space necessary for us to raise


those important topics. Point of order. For the honourable


gentleman to question the ruling back nights debate is taking place a


urgent specific that is is that I do not think we need to worry about


that. Thank you Deputy Speaker. The


intervention fed into my next comment is that opposition days,


backbench committee days and Private Members Bills days are all very


important and the key means in this house of raising issues of concern


to our voters. And up is icily answers the members points. These


days give us a chance to affect real change to Government policy and yet


we only have 13 days allocated. The Backbench Business Committee is


crucial and will be crucial in this minority period, a period of


minority Government to develop relationships across party,


cross-party relationships, and the arguments necessary if we are going


to be effective as a parliament in affecting real change to Government


policy. Isn't the real reason for the


Government doing this is because these debates are though to bowl on.


What they are scared of is the number of individuals on the


backbenches doing what the member of Knowsley did quite a visit.


I quite agree with my honourable friend and I wanted to make that


point. The premise to said only two weeks ago that she wanted


cross-party working, a national consensus, consensus between the


parties in order to serve the national interest. The Government


has made a very poor start and the Government needs to show that it is


ready to use the mechanisms of the House to make that consensus if the


Government wants consensus, I am more than happy to play my part, but


you have to show that you mean business and the Government has to


show that it is ready to make it possible for a consensus to develop


and actually materialise in real meaningful terms in this chamber,


and we have seen very little evidence of that so far. I will


finish perhaps on a more controversial point, which is that I


believe that the Beale reason why we are seeing so little action from the


Government in terms of meaningful debate, opposition day debate and


legislation, no committee of selection, remember, so far. The


bill is coming to the floor of the house, it should not be on the floor


of the house. The reason we have got this is because the benches opposite


are absolutely desperate to avoid any kind of backbench instability in


the Commons and they do that because they are so worried about a future


of their own Prime Minister. The truth is you want the Government


frontbenchers to get beyond the conferences and gets beyond October


to be sure that they still have the Prime Minister in number ten and


they are absolutely desperate to avoid meaningful debates in this


house in order to shore up the position of the Government as it


stands now. That is an appalling abuse of Parliamentary democracy. It


is not in the national interest. When is this parliament going to


end? It is a pleasure to follow the


honourable member but I might refer back to one of the comments that she


made later but as she knows I very much respect, having sat on the


Council of Europe together. I would also like to compliment the


honourable member of Battersea for her maiden speech and also my


honourable friend from Angus who gave an absolutely wonderful speech.


It is so lovely to see another lovely young lady, a Scottish young


lady, in the House of Commons today so thank you for your contribution.


I find it surprising that I am speaking in this debate because I


wasn't going to but I read request come through and I thought I cannot


stop myself, I really must contribute. I am disappointed that


this debate is going to reduce the time or sadly we're not going to get


the debate to follow after this so I am quite sad about that. But I am


very surprised that the opposition brought this debate today. I will


make progress, thank you. Complaining about the time in which


the opposition has had to debate in the chamber, debate issues that are


important to them. Since the election, we have had six days of


Queen 's speech debate, which I know that many opposition members took


part in. So they have had a lot of opportunity to have their say. And


we have had numerous urgent questions involving current issues


or relevant matters to our constituents. Whilst I cannot speak


for prior to 2015, because that is when I was elected, I have looked


over the last two years and there have been a number of times when


have been debates surrounding government businesses around


important legislation with the business has not gone to school


debating time because there has been little appetite from the opposition


to join in. One time in particular takes me back. We had the children


in social work Bill, one of the biggest pieces of legislation around


children and social work in the Commons for a number of years.


Interestingly enough, again it was a piece of legislation that did not go


to its fool debating time. In its second or third readings.


Interestingly enough, when debating an amendment that was picked to gain


headlines in regards to unaccompanied minors, the chamber


was packed. As soon as the amendment was passed, the chamber emptied. In


fact, there was only one opposition member that spoke in the children


and social work Bill, that was covering advisers for care leavers,


adoption. Is it that the opposition didn't feel that those really key,


important issues in a massive piece of legislation in this house wasn't


going to quite grab the headlines? I do agree with my honourable friend


from Eastleigh that this is about political point scoring or trying to


grab headlines with a think it will matter. We have two years ahead of


us debating the biggest piece of legislation we've probably seen in


this Parliament for many, many years. Something that my


constituents are extremely concerned about, they are concerned about us


debating these issues properly and concerned that we get the right


legislation through this house. So it is absolutely correct that on


both sides of the house that must be the focus and we must have enough


time to debate that issue. The issues of Brexit, the laws that will


come through, the intricacies of what happens when we leave the


European Union. Really, I do think the opposition should get over


themselves a bit. As we have heard, there are 20 opposition days put


aside for the opposition, meaning 17 for the opposition to take part in.


I look forward to joining in those opposition debates when they occur.


But I will mention one thing. The honourable gentleman at the back who


has spent the whole of the debate being quite routes to not only the


Leader of the House but myself so what a shame... I give way.


I would just give some advice which is to look at the subject before you


speak. She says she is disappointing when back disappointed that this


debate is taking time away from the next debate but if she hadn't


actually given into the whips when asked to speak at this debate,


surely we would have had more time to speak in the next debate.


I'm very grateful for her giving away because I think she might like


to remember the honourable gentleman speaking for an hour to filibuster a


previous debate. I thank him that I would like to go


back to the intervention of the honourable gentleman. I am fully


aware of what this debate is about and that is why wanted to highlight


the poor performance of the opposition in the children and


social work Bill in this chamber. It was three debates in a subject I


very much care about. What was really depressing was that I had to


go back to those looked after children and say I am very sorry but


the Labour Party who say they represent you were not speaking up


for you in the chamber but it was the Conservatives. So I will make


that point. I shall carry on. I am looking forward to the next two


years and we will do what the British people want and that is


making sure that we deliver on Brexit. I suggest the Labour Party


should again get over themselves and recognise that they do have many


opportunities in this house to debate and contribute and really


should just get on with it and work with us to deliver what the British


people want. Can I first of all congratulate the


member for Angus, who I thought made a sterling, brilliant union speech


and I concurred with nearly everything she said in it, apart


from the political stuff, well, the party political stuff. And she is


not in her seat at the moment but the member for Battersea made an


exemplary speech and it is nice to hear a tribute to one's mother and I


think she did that very beautifully and elegantly. It is a shame to


follow the honourable lady for Rochester and Stroud because I am


rather fond of her, having spent some time there to contribute to the


Labour Party coming third in the by-election. She says Labour Party


have to get over themselves and get on with it. Yes, we would like to


get on with the business of opposition but we're not given the


days to do that. I do apologise to the Leader of the House. I was rude


to her earlier. I actually like the Leader of the House and there are


some things I want from her so I will be nice to her. I do apologise


but there are things I feel strongly about. You just need to bear in mind


that the power of Parliament in her executive is quite phenomenal. It is


said the government has complete control of the timetable. It gets to


control the day is given to opposition for Private Members'


Bills. Government business always takes precedence. Another amendment


says only the government can table motions on tax. We have no mechanism


for allocating money in this house. Another says we can only have the


government setting the programme motion. Even down to the


nitty-gritty of the Welsh grand committee, although the government


can table a motion understanding order 108 saying we can have a Welsh


grand committee and what it will debate.


I'm grateful to him who is also speaking through a hole in his head,


which is just a biological fact, and I don't think he -- I hope he


doesn't think I am being rude. The fundamental point of this debate is


the point of principle that the government has its way but the


opposition has its say. By denying the ratio of opposition days whilst


having its way about extending the length of the session to two years,


the government is breaching that fundamental principle.


We have had several sessions because of early general elections are


because of different start times. We didn't suddenly have 17 days because


that's the fixed number of days you have any session. Quite clearly,


since Richard Crossman introduced it in 1967, the whole ideas of the


change in supply days to opposition days was that the opposition have a


guaranteed fair amount of time throughout the year. It is not just


in standing orders. The government has absolute power to decide how


long a session is going to be. It is only in government hands, not in our


hands or the house's hands. He gets to decide when we will adjourn and


go into recess. Only its amendments will be considered when it comes to


report stage of the bill or are guaranteed to be considered. And


only it can table an amendment to standing orders and be certain they


are going to be debated. That is a phenomenal tying up of power in the


executive and the only thing we have in return for that is the


expectation that the Leader of the House and the government will


exercise fair play in relation to that.


Apologies for forgetting his constituency earlier. How could I


forget? One solution is that one way round this is that they could give


an allotted days. This is what they did in 2015 and 2017. It is also


what they did ten 2001. Could the ghettos and see how many they are


going to give? They could do that but the problem


with previous session is that we didn't know it was going to be a


two-year session until the session moved are long. -- along. I do think


it is an exact match for what we have now. I think any ordinary


member of the public would say that is what everybody would genuinely


expect and ice to the honourable member for Eastleigh and for


Rochester and Stroud is that they see all this stuff does not matter


and it is not about democracy. Remember in 1939 the back row in


this house was about whether the house shoot -- should adjourn in


August. That was the row, not whether -- about some grand piece of


legislation. One of the members who was killed very bravely in the


Second World War and has a shield up on the wall, he accused Chamberlain


of having ideas of dictatorship because he was using the undoubted


power that government had to decide when the adjournment was


anti-thought that was wrong, especially in the house, as it then


was, that was constituted largely of Conservative members. The move to


lots of secondary legislation might be OK if what the Brexit secretary


has regularly said in a house, namely that if a secondary piece of


legislation is prayed against, it will always come to the house, where


true but it is not. Since 2010 and 2016, there were 69 second pieces of


legislation tabled by the government that were prayed against by the


opposition and according to the David Davis rules should be


guaranteed there for a debate on the flood of the house. How many of


those got a debate and the house? Three out of 69. Just three in the


chamber. There were eight in committee. The debate in committee


was not on the merits. It was whether the matter had been


considered. So even if every single member of the committee had voted


no, it would have still gone through and gone onto the statute books. So


I say to the government, when you come forward the bill for the


European Union withdrawal bill, which was to give massive amounts of


secondary legislative power to the government, we are very sceptical.


That's when it starts to look like ideas of dictatorship, not because


of any of the individual members of government think of themselves as


dictators but because of the power this house is given to the


government over the years of every element of the agenda is so


important. I think severable people have made


their point about the opposition days, I say it is a vital difference


between hot air debate, which ends with a vote on whether or not we are


going to adjourn, as we had at the end of the was be debate, whether a


substantive motion on the order paper which has effect. Either


whether it is because it is legislation because it is in


opposition day debate. I remember having a majority losing it on the


Gurkhas. And that is what happened in relation to the Gurkhas. Several


other us who have scars from that debate. But in the end, Government


cannot always run away from those kind of debates and I'd just say to


the honourable members opposite that there has to come a point where the


whole house has to consider the long-term future of the way we do


our business, not just the partisan advantage up today. I do not doubt


that the Government but a smack I will not if she does not mind. She


says she has a very good point, so I will give way.


He is very kind. As a father frontbenchers Leader of the


Opposition to the leader of the hives, if I have got that title


right, I enjoyed his speeches. I was just wondering whether his


constituents in Rhondda really think that the time that this house is


debating Parliamentary business is what we should be discussing in our


last week of session when I also mentioned that jobs, opportunities,


schools are what really matters. There are lots and lots of things we


should debate. I would like a debate in Government time opposition time,


I do not mind, but with a convertible issue on was before stop


I hope to persuade her in that division lobby because I say to her


that you can have as many warm words as you'd want, but if you do not


vote in the end, our constituents will feel fundamentally lets down. I


would say to honourable members opposite you are better having that


debate sooner rather than later otherwise you will have lots of


upsets people. If the Government had a programme, I would be happy for us


to debates about, but there is no legislation. The Leader of the House


refers to the air travel organisers licensing bill. That is not a bell.


That is barely a clause in a bill. As my honourable friend said, we


have debated on the floor of the house because they have not set of


the committee of selection so we can have a proper debate to debate the


thing. I say to the members, I do not doubt that the Government has


the power to do these things, but I do not longer fear it has the


authority to do these things will stop every day it abuses the power,


it diminishes its own authority and every day that it stretches the gap


between its power and authority, it abandons Government by consent and


lapses into ideas of dictatorship. That is why the Government is wrong.


In some ways I feel that Christmas has come early because here we are


with three hours to debate Parliamentary procedure, one of my


favourite activities indeed. I look forward to estimating in Somerset


and talking with my family about all the intricacies of standing orders,


so I feel in many ways fortunate and I has been a happy and fortunate


debate with two brilliant maiden speeches. My honourable friend, the


member for Angus, constituency I have had the privilege of visiting


and know its beauties, and the case that the union perfectly and should


be hired by her tourist boards doing further visits. The honourable lady,


the member for Battersea was so generous to her predecessor, which I


think is one of the great charms of maiden speeches that we do recognise


in them, if only briefly, that people on the other side and all


barred, and it is very charming that that is done and I think the


honourable lady did it well particularly well. I want to move on


to this important subject of standing order 14 and I have much


sympathy that the member for Rhondda said in a very well considered


speech that it is the job of those of us on the backbenches to hold the


Government to account, and the job of holding the executive to account


is not just one of the opposition benches, it is one for Government


benches as well, our Constitution works if it is balanced and if the


Government has to make its case and its arguments. But and why I think


this debate here misfires is the opposition has come to this too


early, too soon in the Parliament and has given an urgency to it but


it does not deserve. In an intervention I made earlier, I


questioned whether it was wise to have asked for this debate. Not


whether it was wise to give it. I believe that standing orders,


Standing Order No. 24 is an exceptionally valuable tool, and I'm


glad the Mr Speaker is back in the chair because the more it is used,


the better. It allows this House... Hansard will show that is not what


he said earlier on. Standing Order No. 24 puts the onus completely in


the hands of the Speaker to decide whether or not the matter is an


urgent matter and the motion does not proceed if the Speaker does not


believe it is an urgent matter. Requesting the debate, not of


granting it, and that is a very different distinction, because I


believe it is of the greatest importance that the Speaker, if


asked for an emergency debate by the formal opposition, should in almost


all circumstances granted. The reason I think that is because that


is an important way for holding the Government to account and in


convincing the Government. As it was said earlier, Standing Order No. 14


gives enormous power to the Government to set out the business


of this house, but there will be opportunities and their need to be


opportunities when urgent matters are brought before it, but there,


the opposition must be wise in what it asks for. I give way.


Give you has put on record that he thinks the Speaker should in almost


all circumstances give way to a Standing Order No. 24 request from


the opposition, I look forward to his support for the future


applications that the opposition will have to make because of the


lack of time for opposition day debates.


But that is where I think the opposition has misfired to


everything there is, a season and a time to any time, but this is not


the season, not the time. There is so much that is going on of general


urgency, and this strikes me as fiddling whilst Brussels burns. We


have this massive Brexit debates to consider, we have still a huge


deficit to be debated, we have that great housing crisis that has been


so starkly board to our attention because of what happened at the


Grenfell Tower, and what is Her Majesty 's loyal opposition ask for?


It asks for a debate on standing orders, a debate on a debate on a


debate a debate on conversation. Can this be what is what is most urgency


to us today? It is a question of proportionality, and the honourable


gentleman for the Rhondda made so many important points about how this


house has limited powers to hold a strong Government to account and how


it should do that. But to do it a few days into the beginning of a


session, before there has been any real opportunity to discover whether


there will be opposition days well before it is decided whether there


will be conditional days give them because it is a two-year session, I


have no doubt that the days will be given, and indeed, if we get a year


from now and the 20 days have been used up and the Government said that


and stands there and comes to the box and says there will be no days,


I will be on the side of the opposition, I will support the


opposition in asking for a proportional share juror in the


second year of the session. That would be only right. I would also be


in favour of the extra three days for the Scottish National Party


because that is what this Parliament ought to do. But that is where the


honourable lady, the shadow leader has misfired. This is too soon, too


early, it is not genuinely urgent, that the opportunity...


Maybe it is too early, but he will know that with previous parliaments


how ensuring the select amenities and standing committees up and


running and opposition debates were clap since. This is unusual after 18


days and after four weeks. He must have some concerns about that.


I thank the honourable gentleman is being premature. The issue is the


month lost between May and June that we have got to a Fixed-term


Parliaments Act, we have got to having elections in May, therefore


we expect these things to be up in running in running in time for the


summer recess. I accept that. But that misses the point that the


election was not on a Fixed-term Parliaments Act normal procedure. It


was under the extraordinary procedure. We've assembled a month


later, therefore closer to the summer recess and the presence of


electing select committee members takes a little time and I think the


opposition is simply being unreasonable. People were having


this debate in our session in September, they would have a fair


point. It would having it in October, they would have an


outrageous point if they had not got any opposition day debates by then.


But this has hardly begun, it is in its infancy, it is like my newborn


son, it is like the mewling and peaking stage, it is not reached the


stage of toggling and walking and taking bold steps,... I will give


way. Busy not agree that when you raise a


child, one must try an instruction that child is on good behaviour from


the very beginning and not let it this behave early on and therefore


our role is to make sure that the Government does not misbehave early


run. He is a harsher authoritarian than I


am! I think that strict discipline of a child, yes a fortnight low old,


maybe unreasonable by any standards, I'm just glad I am not in his


household as an infant. But this isn't too early that might this is


too early and the problem is that it stops looking at the things of real


gravity. We are looking at them in certain time as I can think of.


There is so much of gravity that we need to grapple with. When I said


that I think that I hope that he will grant any reasonable request by


the opposition Standing Order No. 24 debate, there are so many things


they could have asked for. The honourable lady in her opening


speech listed about a dozen things that could have been debated, and in


one of those had been the request for a Standing Order No. 24, it


would have been an absolutely sensible thing and added distinction


and backtrack into this Parliament. Discussing the intricacies of


procedure when so much is going on is not in June with the nation, is


not opportunism, and if they can, withdraw the motion. I am delighted


to be able to speak what I believe is an important debate I would like


to thank you for granting it and thank my member for was of South for


bringing it. I would like to follow everyone else in congratulating the


new burgers for Angus South and my honourable friend for Battersea who


have made superb and notable maiden speeches, but I would like to


confine my remarks to the procedural debate and the arguments in that we


are putting forward which I think are solid and sound, and I would


like to start by pointing out that the result of this general election


has changed the role of this chamber, power has shifted from the


executive to Parliament, there have been few times when we as


backbenchers have had a greater ability to influence and shape


Government policy. It all very well members suggesting


that this is a needless debate, I don't think that's true, you can


stretch the truth thin enough but when you do that people can see


through it. It is true that there has been a lack of time allocated to


Private Members' Bills and to opposition bids. People can see that


that is an attempt to stifle the rule and influences chamber. I


sincerely hope that backbench MPs of all parties can see that. At the


Prime Minister 's recent relaunch, she reached out to the Labour Party


asking us to contribute and not just criticised. That is a worthy


sentiment, and while a way disagree the Prime Minister 's attempt was an


attempt to try and stifle the backbench voice in this chamber. I'm


willing to work with parliamentary I would never vote to cut workers


right or privatise even more of our public services, however, and I


accept that I will be unable to convert many in the Conservative


Party of the benefits of re-nationalising our Railways,


abolishing university tuition fees, although I think there are many


sound ordinance are doing such, or increasing spending on social care


or another public services. However, there are areas of consensus and


issues which can bridge politics. I had rather hope that the public


sector pay cap would be searching issue. I had hoped that some members


opposite would be equally as outraged at the cat Chancellor's


comment, or alleged comments, widely reported about public sector workers


being overpaid and receiving a premium. I would like the Chancellor


to tell that to the student nurse who contacted me over the weekend


facing the prospect of sleeping in a colleague's card because the Renaud


trains following the end of her night shift. I do hope eventually we


will get there and we will see a lifting of the pay cap. If not from


members opposite, maybe members of the DUP tint exert their influence


and give the public sector workers the pay rise that they deserve. In


all honesty, I think there is little prospect of the Prime Minister ever


listening to a lowly backbencher, particularly of the socialist,


trading in supporting backbench Labour MP like myself. But maybe


there is more chance of reaching other Bath and shows, not just did


criticise, members and right honourable member have made


reference to the West Mr Hall debate on the 5th of July about the women's


state pension age and the Waspy campaign. It was well intended bat


attended the chamber was packed and it was dominated by members of the


opposition party and the SNP, but there were a sizeable number of


Conservative members president, too. There are excellent contribution by


members from every party, who recognised that there was a clear in


justice have occurred and that the government should take steps to put


things right. The government's response range from reticent to


ridiculous. I would urge members to listen to the Parliament three


comments of the... He's a decent individual, that really is quite an


outrageous suggestion that women be forced to wait longer for their


state pensions and the suggestion that they should be offered


apprenticeships. The members who weren't here, I've never heard


anything like the gasps and cries that I heard from the gallery. He


did a disservice to the women and I think he did a disservice to the


Conservative Party and the government. To be candid I don't


have a great deal of interest in the reputation and popularity of the


Conservative Party, I don't think you are like many of us in labour


to. I would hope that privately many may disagree with the government's


position in relation to this, and strongly believe that action should


be taken to right that wrong. As backbenchers, we don't have a voice


in this Parliament -- we don't only have a Parliament -- a voice in this


Parliament we have an ability to share in policy, and in this case,


improve the rights of millions of constituents up and down this


country. I don't want to have a rehash of the debate, but I'm trying


to illustrate that the Member for North East Somerset and his


contribution about the fact that we could be addressing important


issues. This is critical we seem to be getting involved, in this


session, with all due respect to the leader and the government who


determine the business, it often seems to be a displacement activity.


We're debating the same things over and over again when we don't have a


resolution, we simply can't move forward. I think we need to demand


that they do something and that where there is consensus, where


there are sensible policies are built raised by honourable members


from any party, I would like to give an assurance that I will give them


my full consideration and I do hope that others would do the same. So, I


would ask members opposite to recognise that they have the power


to change the demand, they have the power to demand change for the Waspy


woman. We will have two demand and obtain a meaningful vote on the


floor of this House. I know that the changes we can achieve will be


determined by the those who bring the Conservative whip, but as


backbench MPs, in the last Parliament, we only had a voice. The


arithmetic is changed. In this Parliament we have the power, if we


choose to exercise it, that this is one campaign where I'm there we have


the numbers. We'll be honourable members be able to identify other


issues are concerns, I know I've got a whole bagful in relation to homes


and communities, regeneration trust and so on, but there may be a basis


for consensus where we can achieve policy changes. If, as I suspect, we


have a government, we have a legislature, that does not wish to


legislate I would like to urge by employing all members to make this


Parliament the backbench Parliament. Two thank you Mr Speaker calling me


to take part in this debate. I love processing procedure I don't think


it is something to be derided or criticised. No apologies from Mr


Speaker I am delighted that we have such experts in this place an


processing procedure. Of course, I know very little about it, but my


honour roll friend from North East Somerset is an expert, as are you Mr


Speaker, in the Joe debate. So, I don't want to sound like a crashing


bore, in much of my maiden speech in my fourth Parliament, which is quite


impressive that I think. For Parliament, I'm leaving in the right


direction. -- four Parliament I'm moving in the right direction. I'm


wished to make it clear that a maiden speech is only a maiden


speech in your first parliament and therefore you're allowed to be


interrupted in further parliaments. My honourable friend has made that


point as only he can. The speech was a Unionist speech and she touched on


a project the world that I love, it's a brutal country. My honourable


friend will be a fantastic representative for the constituency,


and though not in place, the honourable agent -- member from


Battersea made a wonderful speech as well. I was a councillor in


Battersea for four years, it seemed longer than that, I was a councillor


for the most famous and celebrated water balance -- water Battersea,


and that was Balham. I would just like to say this to conclude my


brief remarks, is a better government of whatever colour to be


generous. To be magnanimous. Now, generosity in this place, as you


will know, Mr Speaker, is often abused but it is never despised. So,


my plea to government is as we go forward, please be generous in your


approach to the opposition benches. You will be on the side of the


angels if you are. Thank you Mr Speaker for calling me Mr Speaker. I


would like to commend the members for Angus in Battersea for their


speeches. I also would like to share with the member Battersea lab is one


of the unexpected winners. I have sometimes been a bit disappointed by


my experiences as a new member of Parliament. The first I commented


on, indeed, was the lack of answers to questions and the inability to


hear either in Prime Minister's Questions. In the eight-week that I


made on that subject was viewed over half a million times and retweeted


by the public. I had to take part in this new memory that the ability to


do anything substantive interlocutor is adding to that does apartment.


Because, I Mr Speaker have always looked in politics since childhood


is as a route to achieving change in this country. And I, like many other


members in this House, have worked hard election after election four


years and years to be in the fortunate position to have been


elected to this chamber to try and achieve that change. Like the


children's novel, the wonderful Wizard of Oz, I always assumed that


if I made it to the end of that yellow Brick road, to displace, that


I might find the wonderful wizard of government. Instead, Mr Speaker,


much like Dorothy and her obviously disappointed dog, Todo, toe I have


found no leadership mandate or stature but instead behind the


curtain have found a group of middle aged men protecting their egos in a


bid to take over from a lame-duck Prime Minister. Blue macro may I


just challenged whether the did the middle honourable gentleman just


gone a middle-aged man just then? I have not, that would be a serious


error. Although I'm sure the honourable gentleman is not the


accusing the Leader of the House of being a middle-aged man and if he


can confirm consists confirm order will be served. Blue macro I would


not pass the Leader of the House I would not last the Leader of the


House in that category. At a time, Mr Speaker, when Britain faces


arguably the most challenging of times since the Second World War,


with decisions taken here in this Parliament is deciding what type of


country Britain will be for the next generation, it seems to me that this


government needs to step up to allow cat ability and opposition. As my


honourable colleague said this debate is about the lack of time


given to us with Opposition Day motions and backbench business


debate singing in very short supply on the basis of simple parliamentary


mathematics. And for many members opposite, who no doubt campaigned to


take back control and to argue for parliamentary sovereignty in this


place, they will no doubt share my concern that people such as the


father parliamentary constitutional theory would be turning in his grave


that the idea and the theories from which he built on Montesquieu about


the separation from powers, the balance of power, is that between


the executive and legislature, by not allowing for this ability for


this legislation to hold the government to account that that


balance is not allowed for and therefore the dating back control to


this Parliament is indeed in failure. The government is entirely


consumed with its chaotic management the Brexit, seemingly more


interested in self-preservation than the national interest. It seems to


me that must be left to the accident that matter opposition to act as a


Parliament with a mandate from government in its manifesto to


ensure proper debate about the issues that my constituents are


concerned about. There I say that it is no longer acceptable for a minute


is just to stand up and say everything will be fine, we are a


great nation, because bind... Brian Patrick isn't attaching the world


will only show us as a country that is out of touch and out of control.


That is why we must allow proper time and proper types to debate in


this House, to help the government understand the reality of it in


action. My frustration at the news yesterday was a prime example.


That frustration may have been calmed, Mr Speaker, by the knowledge


that I would have the opportunity to debate the issues of the day in a


grown up, professional and respectful fashion in this House. In


the way that my constituents expect of us and for the reasons they


elected us to this House in the first place. But that very normal of


asks seems to be being thwarted by the Government and so it is with


great disappointment that I find myself having to make this speech in


support of the motion from my honourable friend, arguing for what


should be normal Parliamentary debate in this Parliament. So,


whilst you may not be able to resolve my disappointment, Mr


Speaker, at what I found behind the curtain of power, I would hope this


House puts national interest above power games and party political


concerns and allows the proper time for debate and scrutiny. Thank you,


Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to follow the honourable gentleman. I'm


also, like other honourable members in this House, disappointed that


this debate has eaten into time we might have used for the debate on


abuse and intimidation of candidates in the public during the election


campaign. Particularly at the weekend, I was trying tone joy quiet


time my family, a member of the public went to the extent of getting


my private number to phone me up to tell me she disliked me so much and


what I stood for that she wasn't surprised I got death threats that.


Was a charming start to the weekend with my family. Mr Speaker, this is


also an important debate and it's also an important matter that we


look at the scheduling of Parliamentary business or rather the


lack of scheduling of Parliamentary business before the recess. During


the debate, we've had two excellent maiden speeches one from the


honourable lady, the new member for Angus, an accomplished speech and


I'd like to thank her for the gracious comments she made about our


friend and colleague, our previous Chief Whip. I respect her Unionist


views and I hope she will respect my wishes for our country to be


independent in due course. She's keen for the SNP to take


independence off the table, according to what she says were the


wishes of her constituents in 2014. But I would remind her that last


year, her constituents voted by a significant majority to remain part


of the European Union so she might also like to ask the Government to


take Brexit off the table if she's so keen on her constituents' wishes.


We also had a fantastic maiden speech from the honourable member


from Battersea. I find a fascinating history of her admirably diverse


constituency of Battersea and a moving tribute to her mother for


assisting her in the battle with her disability. I'm sure she will be a


fantastic advocate in this House for those of our constituents who have


to deal with disability in their life. Mr Speaker, there can be no


doubt that as other honourable members have already said, this


Government seems to be running scared of scrutiny and indeed, the


very reason why we had an unnecessary general election, four


or five weeks ago, was because the prm wanted to a-- Prime Minister


wanted to avoid execute any by getting an enormous majority so this


House wouldn't work effectively to scrutinise her. She didn't get her


wishes. Now we have a hung Parliament, where there is the


possibility of true scrutiny. But she need not despair. Because she


need only Look North to Holyrood for a minority Government bringing


forward a full programme in its first year, including ground


breaking on child poverty. It seems that the Prime Minister is running


rather short of ideas and indeed, those of us who fought Tory


candidates, as I did, successfully I'm glad to say, in the general


election in Scotland will be aware that the Tories in Scotland had only


one policy and people are beginning to wonder what the Tory Party stands


for? What are they here to do? What is this Government existing to do


other than to take Britain out of the European Union, in the most


inane and hapless fashion possible. A particular question is - what are


the new Scottish Conservative members of Parliament going to do in


this Parliament to scrutinise the Government? What are they going to


do with their time here? Clearly, the Prime Minister's estimation of


their abilities is such that she's had to ennoble one of their


colleagues, defeated by my honourable friend, the member for


Perth, and shove him into the House of Lords to be a minister because


she doesn't think the Tory MPs are up to it. I do wonder if she's right


as they have shown a remarkable ignorance of the difference between


devolved and reserved powers, rather like the drafters of the EU


withdrawal bill, it seems. I'd like to make a generous offer that I


would be very happy to recommend an undergraduate law student from my


alma mater to give a ewe tore on the difference between -- ewe tore on


the difference between the two powers -- tutorial. It's quite


possible we can inflict a Government defeat if that what we chose to do.


They said they would work for Scotland's interest. Does she recall


and remember exactly what they did in response to the appalling deal


put forward to this Democratic Unionist Party? I do. And somebody


who is LGBT, I find the deal with the DUP particularly obnoxious. It's


everyone's human rights, women's reproductive rights generally, the


honourable gentleman shouts at me to give over, but human rights are


important to some of us in this House. I'm happy to tell him I'm not


going to give over about human rights. My honourable friend raised


the issue what have are the Conservative MPs going to do to


represent the interests of voters in Scotland. One of the issues that


should be coming before this Parliament, we're promised an


immigration bill to be scheduled at some time in the Parliamentary


business. No sign of it yet, Mr Speaker. But one thing that the


Conservative MPs could do is to respect the wishes of business in


Scotland, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, and the Institute of


Directors - A point of order. Is it right and appropriate at the point


when my honourable friend is making the speech the Tory hies come here,


stand at the bar at the House and heckle when they're not part of this


debate? THE SPEAKER: I hadn't heard the


alleged chundering. It is unseemly, I say. They shouldn't do that. The


honourable and learned lady is a very robust individual and she is


well able to fend for herself. They shouldn't stand in an aggressive,


mafioso posture, it's disagreement and quite unnecessary. I'm grateful


to my honourable friend - THE SPEAKER: Point of order, Mr Mark


Pritchard. Can I confess, it was not the whips chundering, it was my good


self, Sir. THE SPEAKER: That is both candid of


the honourable gentleman and arguably a first.


LAUGHTER Mr Honourable friend and some


honourable gentleman in the House and the Speaker are very gallant,


but I can assure them I have no difficulty with the chundering going


on to my left. It's not going to put me off my stride. I was suggesting


that perhaps one of the things that this Government needs to do is to


bring forward a debate on the floor of this House about the basis of its


immigration policy going forward. Because we heard during the general


election campaign that the Prime Minister wants to stick with the


unrealistic targets which she's previously missed for seven years.


The reason that these targets are unrealistic is that they're based on


ideology and not on evidence. Mr Speaker, we need an evidence-based


debate on the floor of this House about the immigration policy for the


whole of the UK going forward and if we have that, we will see that


immigrants are, on average, more likely to be in work, more likely to


be better educated and younger than the indigenous population. And that


Scotland's demographic needs are such that we require a progressive


immigration policy. As I said earlier, business in Scotland wants


this: The Chambers of Commerce and the Institute of Directors in


Scotland say they want the post student work visa brought back and


that they want a different immigration policy for Scotland for


its unique demographic needs. Let's have a debate about that, rather


than a debate about process. Other countries, like Canada and


Australia, manage to operate differential immigration procedures


within their federation. Professor Christina Boswell has produced a


report evaluated this different approach. There's cross-party


support for that in Scotland, even the Scottish Tory Party supports the


return of the post study work visa. What are they going to do about


that? And when are we going to have a debate on the floor of the House?


Another very important issue from last Parliament was the plight of


child refugees in Europe. Many of us, including members on the


Conservative benches, fought for the rights ever those children. We got


an amendment to the Immigration Act, the Dubbs amendment. Last week, I


attended the launch of a report by the human trafficking foundation,


following an independent inquiry about the situation of separated and


unaccompanied minors in Europe. It has revealed that the United Kingdom


Government has woefully failed those children and that ministers have


done and I quote "as little as legally possible to help


unaccompanied children in Europe". The report says they've turned from


a humanitarian crisis that would not be tolerable to the British public


if they could see the truth of what's happening in France at the


moment. So when are we going to have a debate about that? When are we


going to be able to hold the Government to account for the


promises they made when the amendment was passed and the fact


that they've only brought 480 minors to the United Kingdom when the


understanding was that they would bring 3,000? When are we going to


have a debate about that important issue? We must find time in this


Parliament to force the Government to rectify the dereliction of duty.


Other honourable members have mentioned the EU withdrawal bill,


brought forward last week. And clause five of that makes it clear


that the Government do not intent the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights


to become part what have they call domestic law after Brexit. Now Mr


Speaker, this is an issue which must be challenged and debated


immediately. There was a time, not so long ago, when the Secretary of


State for exiting the EU was a great fan of the EU Charter of Fundamental


Rights. He liked it so much, he used it to take up a legal challenge


against the snoopers' charter, which ended up in the European Court of


Justice. Now he's changed his mind and he's brought forward a draft


bill which means a whole swathe of rights and protections enjoyed by


our constituents are going to go if this bill goes through unamended.


Where's the debate about that? The EU charter... I will give way. The


Charter of Fundamental Rights only applies to citizens in the United


Kingdom insofar as it applies to EU law. Therefore it cannot have


applicablity when we are no longer under European law. But if as the


Government have promised, this EU withdrawal bill is going to


guarantee all the rights that we already enjoy by virtue of EU


citizenship, then the charter on fundamental rights should not be


going. The charter defends all sorts of rights, such as data protection,


children's rights and the free standing right to equality, which


are not protected by the ECHR. I'm grateful for the honourable member


giving way. Would those rights not be protected, as incorporated into


our laws, as British laws, notwithstanding that their source is


in the EU? The honourable lady has very ably


illustrated why we need to debate this. She thinks that despite the


fact that the you Charter of fundamental rights are not going to


be part of the Britain this December look. Let's have a debate about why


were going to do that. -- how were going to do that. These rights are


going to be real. Because just last week in the Supreme Court we saw


that a gentleman, John Walker, was able to ensure equal pension rights


for his husband thanks to EU law. That was a timely reminder of the


value of EU law to our constituents. Very important rights. What is more


important then for a married couple two men ought to win in that they


have the same pension rights as a straight couple? Personally I find


that very important and I'm sure many the members of the House would


as well. Mr Speaker we cannot afford to fall behind the standards set by


the European Union on human rights. On the face of it, the EU withdrawal


Bill seems to be about to do that. We must insist on parliamentary time


to debate these issues properly, so like all upon the government to get


their act together, have the courage of its convictions bring the


business to the Florida house so that we can debate some of the


issues that I have mentioned and that other honourable members have


mentioned, in a full and frank fashion, rather than running scared


from the policies for which you are so keys to espouse, when you


thought, -- when they thought they began to have a whopping majority.


They are not OK now. Thank you Mr Speaker, and of course it is a


pleasure to follow the many speeches of the member of Angus South and of


Battersea. I'd do you reflect a little bit on a debate that we may


get to later on today, if we get time, on the youth Parliament. I


think I'm probably one of the only MPs that was a member of the youth


Parliament when it was set up in 2000 2001 -- 2000-1. And I'm am a


member pile in Parliament. What I reflect upon this is the kind of


behaviour that we have from that side of the House cutting down the


opportunity to have debate and discussion would be something that


would have been unheard of in the Youth Parliament. And here in the


Parliament that is meant to be the mother of Parliaments playing


jiggery-pokery with the timetable seems to be perfectly acceptable.


So, I do wonder about the responsibility of the government and


what it looks like for constituents out in the wider world. Today, Mr


Speaker, my constituents were queueing up around the block, not


for a gig or a music activity, but to see a doctor. Queueing up for


over a one-hour TC the local doctor in Peacehaven. -- to see the local


doctor in Peacehaven. It is a regular thing that my constituents


do. But why customer because Iraqi doctors have to do has doubled while


resources to our NHS has been cut. Equally, with housing, we have


houses -- we do not have enough houses, and of course we all know


that teachers's pay has reduced by ?3 an hour in real terms since the


party opposite took power. And their workloads have also increased. And


it is independent research that shows that, so you may wish to chant


across the other side of the chamber about it, but I suggest you go and


read the research. So, my constituents would be absolutely


flabbergasted to think that we were effectively reducing our workload to


cover the same amount of time over two years then we were over a


one-year and saying oh, it is all because that is what it says in


standing orders. I'm afraid, Mr Speaker, I think that is a weak


response. We need to take the moral high ground, not just the letter


what is in standing orders. Yes, I will give way. Can I suggest that


the facts contradict the gentleman giving away's opening remarks. We


have had debate and therefore that is democracy whether the honourable


Antman likes it or not. This he not agree that the gap there are strong


economy to have a strong NHS. Is the British model or the Venezuelan


model the best way to form a strong NHS? I think we can take them the


best around all of the world, Scandinavia, Germany, etc etc, well


they are able, Germany for example to have a strong economy and a


fairer society. Unlike, under this government, where we actually have


seen a bigger divide them between rich and poor and people who have


not been able to access vital services. Last week, Mr Speaker, a


woman came into my surgery and said that she had been on the waiting


list for a council house for two years. I had to tell her that she


was likely to remain on the waiting list for another 3-4 years. The


reality is, not enough houses are being built under this government,


under previous governments and for a generation. And what we need to talk


about, surely, is making sure that we can hold the government's policy


to account. She asked me to make sure that her voice was being heard


in this chamber. Mr Speaker, if I go back to her and say, well, I'm


terribly sorry, we didn't quite get enough opposition days to raise your


urgent need, she would feel like her voice, through me, had been taken


away and she would feel like that, quite rightly, because it has been


taken away. Because they lack of debate and a lack of opposition time


takes the voice away from constituents, from all


constituencies, from across this country. And this has happened,


without a vote in Parliament, but just with an announcement that was


made in the papers that now we will be having a two year period rather


than a one-year period. Whenever you wish to call it, I think this


constituents will not really care, they will care that you are denying


a voice for them in Parliament and not the petty name politics that you


wish to pay. -- wish to play. I am a relatively new member, only a few


weeks here, but if I were an employee, and I suddenly said, well,


I'm not going to do that work in the year I'm going to take two years to


do it, I would be put on capability and I probably would not have a job.


Well, I suggest this government is put on capability and this job


should not have a job, because extending the amount of time that


you do the same amount of work is not only will workplace -- is not


done in the workplace and it should not be done in our Parliament. It is


very simple, Mr Speaker, what the government can do. They can come


here and make a pledge to DD things. -- three things. They can say this


to a number of days an opposition for backbench per year will be


offered as there are in the standing orders procession. Easy PC. Say it.


Make a pledge, make a commitment and then we won't need to shoot our 's


early. We will be able to sit down and relax. -- Chicagoans early. The


second thing they can say is that there will be the same number of


days in this Parliament for all of that overall as there were in


previous parliaments. Nice and easy, easy to do, make that statement now


and again we could relax. And finally, the party opposite could


get on with selecting their select committee representatives. They


could get on with allowing us to scrutinise legislation. They could


get on with the work. It easy. We've managed to hold an election today.


Our elections shut today and our party, ten minutes ago, we will be


announcing our representatives. You could have been busy doing the same.


Why haven't you? Instead, you been fiddling while democracy burns. Get


on with!. That is what members of the public want, they wanted to get


on with it. They want but this side of the House wants, they were really


get on with it. Agree The Times, a greedy days and make that statement


and allow us to debate the issues that matter and stop wasting our


time by your prevarication. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The question is


that this House is considered the scheduling of parliamentary business


by the Leader of the House and the implications of a two-year session


for standing orders requirements. Those in favour say iron -- I. On


the contrary know. I think you have to try again. The question is, I'll


say it slowly that this House has considered the scheduling of


parliamentary business by the Leader of the House and the insipid impetus


in a two-year gree bull as many other opinion say I. On the


contrary, no. I had a solitary I, so I think the ayes have it. -- I think


we are due two I think we are due to have much number three on the. The


question is as on the Oder paper, those of you in favour. Say ayes.


Motion of the House, Private Members' Bills. I call the Leader of


the House to move. Leader of the House, Andrea Leadsom. Putt I picked


to move the motion standing in my name. The purpose of this motion is


to allow 13 days were private member 's business in line was required


under standard order the macro Standing Order number 14. We will


expect to provide additional days in due course. Only extended


parliamentary session of 2010-12 the government provided extra days were


Private Members' Bills and these were approved at a later date. The


emotion we are dealing with the day covers days for a Private Members'


Bills between now and the 23rd of November 20 18. We will, therefore,


bring forward a motion to provide additional data Private Members'


Bills in due course, which will allow us to take into account the


progressive business and any new recess dates and are allowed in


future. This will balance the needs of members to proceed with private


members business with members of the priorities. Members value time spent


in their constituencies on Fridays and scheduling additional sitting


Fridays were Private Members' Bills in 2019, with no regard to what


pressures might exist at that time, could cause avoidable inconvenience.


This is a proportionate way to deal with this being a longer session and


I encourage their house to support this motion. Thank you the question


is as on the order paper. I should notify the House that I selected


both of the amendments on the order paper, if memory serves me


correctly, the amendment and the name of the Leader of the Opposition


and the amendment in the name of the honourable gentleman, the Member for


Rhondda. On the other. White thank you Mr Speaker and can I think the


Leader of the House removing her motion. I'd like to move the motion


under half of the Leader of the Opposition, but subject to the House


agreeing before Thursday, the 30th of September 2017 to a motion


providing for an additional sitting Fridays, Private Members' Bills


together at the necessary adjustments to Standing Order and


14. Mrs Peter I won't go over some of the items that I made previously,


-- Mr Speaker... These are very important process, along with the


parliamentary business and so therefore given to them said


previously, we don't have any confidence that the government are


actually going to provide us with those extra dates as the Leader of


the House has said and so that is why we are moving our motion for


those extra days. 13 sitting Fridays. Mr Speaker, many


organisations... I'm sorry to cut off so early in her remarks but


would could you just clarify that she is wanting 13 extra days but she


also campaigning for another ballot to be held in a year's time? Is it


the 26 days in this session on the existing ballot, that would would


give Private Members' Bills in this session twice as much chance of


being successful in this session as they would in an ordinary session.


Sarah selection would only work if there was another ballot in a year's


time. Mr Speaker I really would like that ballot and the top of the


ballot would be Mr Speaker, Private Members' Bills


are important. It's an important measure for backbenchers to try and


raise issues before Parliament. Many outside organisations and charities


also wish to see the Private Members' Bills moved. Obviously I'm


deeply concerned because I understand also that it's been very


difficult for members of the public to table petitions, partly because


some of the select committees, particularly the commissions


committee, haven't been organised yet. As I said previously, we have


already picked our selection committees and the leader of the


House has said that the select committees won't even be sitting and


organised until September. But that's why, Mr Speaker, it's


important for the confidence of Parliament and for democracy and in


the interests of all our constituents that Private Members'


Bills are allocated along the same lines as I mentioned earlier about


standing order 14, that we do get, Government has said in their press


release that the session is double the length of a normal Parliamentary


session. Therefore, Mr Speaker, we would expect and accept the extra 13


days. I so move. THE SPEAKER: Thank you. Mr Fip ill


Davis. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise, I wasn't actually


intending to speak in this particular debate, but given that


the honourable lady opposite failed to answer my very simple question,


it seems that we need to explore this subject a bit more deeply.


Because the honourable lady's amendment merely asks for another 13


sitting Fridays, the honourable gentleman for rounda has gone


further and named an additional Fridays. None have addressed the


issue about whether or not they want, as part of that, an extra


ballot to take place in a year's time. Yes of course. Surely the


important point here is that of the 14 bills, in the last two


Parliamentary sessions that actually made it onto the statute book, three


of them came from ten-minute rule bills. There are other routes to


getting Private Members' Bills on the statute. I'm very grateful to


the honourable lady for her comment, but that doesn't - the problem with


ten minute rule bills is that they go to the back of the queue in


effect. The ones that get the precedence are the ones who come out


of the ballot. They're the ones who are going to get the best slice of


it. Of course, I understand the honourable member for Rhonda, I


would be arguing the same. He wants 26 rather than 13, because it will


enhance the chances of his being top of the bill getting his bill


through. So he's arguing out of a natural self-interest. I don't blame


him for doing so. If I was top of the ballot, he tells us he's not


arguing out of self-interest. No, I'm arguing out of his interest


actually because he's going to support my Private Members' Bills.


It's an ugly rumour, but it happens to be true, I am supporting his


Private Members' Bill. Therefore, as a result of that, Mr Speaker, it


seems to me he doesn't need his 26 days in order to get his bill


through. But he might think, this might be just a reserve, a tactic he


has in reserve in case things don't go so well on the first particular


day, that it gives him more days. I hope he will declare his interests


when he gets up to move his amendment. The honourable lady


opposite hasn't managed to explain the standing orders in the House are


quite clear that there shall be 13 days for Private Members' Bills in a


session. Not that there will be a minimum of 13 days or a maximum of


13 days, just that there will be 13 days. That's it. That's what's in


the standing orders. It seems to me, if people want to meddle with the


standing orders they have to meddle with all of it. It's just not


acceptable to say, we'll have one ballot in the session of Parliament


and we will have 26 sessions for that one particular ballot. That,


I'm afraid, just does not wash. It does not work. If the honourable


lady had come along with her amendment, and the honourable


gentleman, to say that over this two-year period, we need to have a


second ballot in a year's time and a 13 extra days for that particular


ballot, that would be a perfectly respectable position for her to


hold. I would have a bit more sympathy. I would have a bit more


sympathy with that argument. I'm not saying I would support it, but I


would have more sympathy for that argument. Her argument and the


honourable lady's argument that we should have 26 sessions for Private


Members' Bills for one ballot is completely and utterly unreasonable.


I'll give way. I'm grateful. I understand what he says about the


standing orders, but the leader of the House just announced that


Government may potentially come forward with additional private


members sitting days throughout this session. So would he oppose those


and for what purpose would he suggest they should be used? Yes, I


think the standing orders are perfectly adequate that there should


be 13 days for Private Members' Bills in a session. That seems to me


a perfectly reasonable number. I don't really see any justification


for in effect saying that this particular ballot of Private


Members' Bills in this session, for some reason this particular ballot


deserves a better chance of getting their bills through than any other


previous session of Parliament. I'll give way. The honourable member is


being very generous. But if I remember, recall correctly, there


was a motion in the 2010-12 Parliament to extend the number of


private members days on the basis of the session being extra long. I


can't recall the honourable member calling for an extra ballot then,


when the motion was passed. Just because something happened in the


past, doesn't mean to say it was a good thing to happen, Madam Deputy


Speaker. That falls into that particular category. If the


honourable lady looks at my voting record, she would notice that a lot


of things that happen during the coalition years were not


particularly to my taste and I used to vote accordingly. As the record


will confirm. So praying in aid something that happened during the


coalition years is not necessarily the best way to win over my support.


My point is that this is a matter of fairness and everybody enters a


ballot, in each session of Parliament, they enter knowing they


will have 13 sessions of Parliament in which, 13 days in that session of


Parliament for those Private Members' Bills to proceed. What


we're being asked to do today is agree that this particular ballot,


this particular ballot from this particular session means that some


MPs will have a better chance of getting their Private Members' Bills


through than would happen in any previous session. I'll give way. I


understand what he's saying, but surely, if this was a normal session


in terms of a year long, the chances of getting a Private Members' Bill


would be less than it is going to be even with the 13 extra days. Do you


think it's really fair, I have sympathy about another ballot, is it


really fair that the number of days should be limited when the actual


length of the session has been increased over a year? Well, as I


said, I think there's an argument to say that there should be 13


sessions, 13 days for this particular ballot and that in a


year's time, we should hold another ballot and that there should be


another 13 sessions for that particular ballot and that would


give people the 26 sessions, the 26 days within the session. That would


be a perfectly reasonable thing to request. I'd have a great deal of


sympathy for that. It appears to me nobody is making that case on the


Opposition benches. Why can we not have another ballot in a year's


time, if we're going to have double the number of sessions? The


honourable lady opposite hasn't been able to answer that question. No


doubt the honourable member will have a crack at answering that


question, but I don't think there is much of an answer to it. If we are


trying to replicate, it seems to me, point that the honourable lady was


making was that we should be trying to replicate what would normally


happen over the course of two years. Well, what would normally happen


over the course of two years is we'd have two ballots. So why is the


honourable lady not actually bringing forward part of her


amendment the extra ballot that would have normally happened in that


two-year period. She seems to be cherry-picking the bit she wants out


of the two years. So I would say to my honourable friend on the


frontbench that she should beware of these requests for supposed fairness


when they're going to isht deuce a very unfair system -- introduce a


very unfair system, stick to his guns and say for each ballot of the


Private Members' Bills there should be 13 days and that's plenty of


opportunity to get their legislation through and if people want another


13 days, then there must be another ballot, something that nobody yet


seems to have called for. Thank you very much. I wish I could say it was


a pleasure to follow the honourable gentleman. I'm very fond of the


honourable gentleman. Can I say to the honourable gentleman, in all


candidness, he is everything that is wrong currently with the Private


Members' Bills system as it currently is constituted. His fill


bustering, his attempt to destroy really honest attempts by members of


Parliament to bring legislation forward is a thing that our


constituents hate most about the sitting Fridays. I do wish at some


point he would just stop. Yes, I'll give way. Perhaps what he ought to


reflect on, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that for the first bill that appears


on a Friday, it just needs 100 people to turn up to support him.


He's as guilty as many people are in this House of complaining that a


bill didn't get passed when they couldn't be bothered to turn up and


support it in the first place. If the honourable gentleman bothered to


turn up, some of these bills he claims are so important would


actually get through. Why doesn't he tell that to his constituents. Can I


say in response to the honourable gentleman, yes, of course, it's a


matter of 100 members turning up. We've had members here thwarted not


by the honourable gentleman, to be fair to him, thwarted by Government.


There is something wrong and rotten with the way we do our Private


Members' Bills in this House that wastes our time coming down from


Scotland to participate and take part in these debates only for the


honourable gentleman to drone on sometimes for two hours to ensure


that this isn't taken. I hope - yes I will give way. I thank my


honourable friend for giving way. First of all, the procedure


committee has produced dozens or at least two reports in the last couple


of years, outlining sensible reforms and over the years, has produced


dozens of reports many reflects the system in the Scottish Parliament,


where a bill that continues to have support on a cross-party basis


should continue to make progress. Shouldn't that be adopted here? My


honourable friend is utterly right. The procedure committee has looked


to this for several occasions, that I can recall and remember. Each


recommending strong and sensible proposals and suggestions and


recommendations about how we actually address this. Now I think


the time is absolutely right and prime, given that we've got this


two-year session, let's vow to resolve the issues, outstabbeding


issues about Private Members' Bills and assure that we have something


that is fit for purpose, something that would ensure that we have the


respect of constituents and that we can work cross-party, I'd love to


work with the honourable gentleman on a horse racing issue, something


that him and I share an interest in. We can't do this, because he would


be filibustering me not to get it through. I'm more surprised that


he's a sponsor of the honourable member for Rhondda's bill. Maybe


suggest a change in attitude and approach by the honourable


gentleman, a mellowing over the years that he may be constructively


engaged in some of these issues. I'm hearing, "Don't hold your breath."


From a colleague. I will not be holding my breath. I give way. It


might help the honourable gentleman when he's passing accusations to my


honourable friend that he did indeed speak for over an hour when I


brought my Private Members' Bill forward and he made constructive


points, even though he opposed it. He didn't oppose for opposition's


sake. I'm a great fan of the honourable gentleman's speeches,


he's a unique and rare talent for fill bustering. I wish he wouldn't


do it in Private Members' Bills. He has an ability that seems to be able


to speak for hours and hours on these things. It's something that


new members of the House might actually have to have a look at.


I'll give way. I'm sorry to the honourable gentleman. It comes to


this particular motion, Madam Deputy Speaker and to the two amendments in


place, we will support both amendments. Because we


fundamentally, profoundly agree if we have a two-year session of


Parliament we must have a system and a routine of Private Members' Bills


time that respects the fact that this is a two-year session of


Parliament, to have 13 days associated for a Private Members'


Bills is insuffer. I accept the honourable gentleman's point, the


Rolls Royce solution is to have another ballot next year. That is


something the Government is not going to do. So what do we do in the


place of Government's refusal to do that. Surely the sensible way to do


it is ensure we get sufficient time for the Private Members' Bills that


we have in place, which will possibly allow a number of bills to


progress and get through this House that we would normally expect. Yes.


I will give way. The honourable gentleman said it would be the Rolls


Royce solution to have had the second ballot, which I think my


honourable member made a good point on. But nobody's asked for it. That


is the point. player-macro is not in the


amendment, so it's not a case of being a Rolls-Royce is not something


England's asked for. Other honourable friends look like they


might be in a position to agree, let's do it, because that surely is


the solution that we need in place. We're not going to get that, the


government has made that clear, said that we need to put in place is an


arrangement so that we can properly reflect this to session to


Parliament from Private Members' Bills in front of us. We got a


affectionate Private Members' Bills in these particular ventures. We got


the first SNP private members Bill through this House before the I


might a friend for a bucking the private members Bill through. Last


year, we had for a Private Members' Bills in the top ten, some fantastic


Private Members' Bills that we are pleased and proud of. We've got to


on this particular order paper and I'm looking forward to hearing


Private Members' Bills may an honourable friend who's no longer


his place in my other honourable friend is no longer in its place. We


will them and I look forward to hearing them and supporting them


when they come to this House. We do need certainty about Private


Members' Bills, because while it easy for some of the honourable


colleagues across the chamber to get back to the House of Commons on


Friday. It's not easy for us from Scotland, it involves us getting on


a plane travelling performer Ivan seven hours to get here to take part


in these debates so we need certainty. Were grateful to the


leader of the houses listen to the seven sessions we to secure... I


declaring interest as someone who has come fifth place in the private


members Bill ballot, the IS on this site, but by his logic he is arguing


for more sitting Fridays when it would be even harder for people from


Scotland to come down here and nowhere in his argument does he


ignore list the fact that the most important part of a Bill stage is in


committee, and that committee can go on for weeks and weeks and weeks,


not subject to any of the criticisms of what may happen on a Friday and


that is the important part of the Bill. Is he making their proposals


about that and it has not been to a town. Are honourable gentleman makes


a very good point about the committee stage. NIO to be a member


that committee. If not they have daddies abandoned, but this has


certainty about when these data going to be available. We are


grateful that the first one to have been lifted listed but if we are


going to have extra days considered it only right and proper that they


be listed now so that we get this certainty. We have to make a massive


effort to get to this House, it's not so easy when you come from


private to get down here on a Friday to get back. So it is all about


ensuring that the certainty about the dates on the leader that are


suggested. I will end my contribution, Madam Deputy Speaker,


just as a little bit about Private Members' Bills and the importance


that they have to be house. Our constituents like Private Members'


Bills. They will take only members of the House that they are going to


get lobbied on Private Members' Bills more than any other piece of


legislation in the course of their time as members of parliament


because people like the way that we do this. They like the way that it


is usually cross-party, these usually consensus, and it's an issue


that -- issues that the iPod to them. It has to be said, given the


vacuousness of this government's legislative programme, probably the


most interesting and exciting pieces of legislation and feels that we


will consider in this parliament will be the Private Members' Bills.


So, let's make sure that we give it the necessary time to consider them.


Let me end on one thing, Madam Deputy Speaker, but let's get the


whole issue of Private Members' Bills properly resolved so that we


do not have my friend, the member from Shipley, continuing to speak...


Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm grateful for being called as a new


member in this place, you will excuse me for not being entirely


over a with all the rules and procedures. When it comes to the big


principles, that was the reason I was elected to come here by the


people of Plymouth Sutton and Devonport. I think the motion that


has been put forward today seems incredibly sound and reasonable in


terms of saying, if there is to be a non-parliamentary session, which are


normally is a year, at -- a normal parliamentary session, which


normally is a year the near as a set number of Private Members' Bills


sitting. If that is to be extended, if the procedures are to be changed


in such a way that that year becomes two years, that session becomes a


larger session, that is John goes on first for further, we should reflect


that in the wake of the operating this place. Because, for me, what


frustrates me I didn't come to trial and to stand up and debate about


procedure and there is a part of me that really disliked myself standing


year and speaking in this way, because I was elected to come here


and deliver action. If the government is not able to bring


forward its manifesto because of the arithmetic of this place and the


unpopularity of some of its policies, both on its own benches


and only public, then it should be right that by backbenchers on both


sides of this House have the ability to bring forward legislation that


will make a difference, be it small or large. It is the promise of


Westminster every backbencher that they have the ability change the law


of the land to help their constituents, and that is what I


think we should be discussing year-to-date. Now, as a new member,


I watched on television the proceedings of the South and now I


find myself a part of it. The idea of filibustering bills is something


that the majority of our electorate find at warrant. -- torrent they


want to to see these opportunities brought forward to bring forward


legislation that is an thing that I imagine people in Plymouth and ran


the country will find a little bit curious. I don't want to play


procedural games because I'm surrounded by people that are much


better at it than I am I fear, but I would say simply that if we are to


have a session that is not one-year but two years, then it seems logical


and hurting me, both as a new member and as someone who is trying to


represent the people who elected me, that the number of Private Members'


Bills is scaled accordingly to the time of that session. I am most


grateful to my honourable friend for giving way. Our constituents


expected to come here for a certain number of days but the fact that Her


Majesty 's opposition at the moment I totally useless and it really be


rather right here at all according to their game... Man in jeopardy


Speaker I'm very happy to change the useless to another adjective, but


isn't it true that they also expect us to be here for 13 sitting Fridays


where we can discuss Private Members' Bills, is that true? I'm


grateful to the Member for the contributions and as someone who for


the 20 ten and 2015 general elections. What worries me is about


how this debate looks to the average freight in Plymouth is that it looks


like we're playing procedural games. So we're not spending this time here


debating food banks, or the crisis in our NHS. Were not looking at why


the M5 stops at Exeter and doesn't extent of the game are bridge and


Plymouth. Were not looking at the issues that come up on the doorstep


we find ourselves play procedural games because the government has


chosen to play those procedural games in the way that they cancelled


the teams and elongated this session without correspondingly carrying


everyday things that would have a fair way of doing so. It seems to me


like a tactic from the South, 1970s playback of something that should


have been consigned to the past. We should be striving to have a


21st-century parliament with 21st-century procedures and


policies, that enabled the backbenchers to bring forward


legislation if they so choose. Now, I wasn't drawn in the... Thank you


for giving way, has seat of the opposition Chief Whip of the should


be the end of procedural games in Parliament? In my experience


procedural games is one of the few things that opposition has at its


disposal. Is he going to take the opportunity to rule out the use of


procedural games in the use of this Parliament questioner --? I thank


the gentleman for that intervention. I want to talk about food banks and


the issues that really matter and I appreciate that people have strong


views on this regard but so do I. That is that backbench members


should have the same opportunity in 80 recession are they doing a single


your session to bring forward legislation. I wasn't drawn in the


private member session ballot, the device had been John I would have


been proposing to its underrated franchise to 16 and 17-year-old.


Instead of us looking at how we can lock ourselves in the past with


procedures that locker can reflect that -- don't reflect that our


intention. If we extend the numbers, we can then talk about how we can


get young people involved with our politics and involved in politics


and that will hopefully shine the light on the procedures and workings


of this House to make it better and fairer, because, Madam Deputy


Speaker, I want to be able to get back to Plymouth for the recess and


hold my head up high and say that I was defending their rights and their


responsibilities in this place. As a lowly backbencher, I want the


ability to support other backbenchers in bringing legislation


that can make a difference, because it feels to me that the government


is trapped like a rabbit in the headlights in their right wing of


the party. Unable to bring evident manifesto that they were elected on,


and able to propose solutions that we really need, unable to stand up


to the scrutiny did they have on various issues, so that those


debates about what thing, public sector pay cap, Private Members'


Bills and allow each and everyone of us to adjust their way and for a


Baker's dozen of extra Private Members' Bills, I hope this House


will support this notion. I just want to start by saying that the


opposition's view this version tonight is not about causing


trouble, it's about maintaining an important democratic principle of


this House, which is in a two-year session, already quit declared, it


is perfectly legitimate the government should allocate the


proportionate number of days and they could do that tonight. We could


do this tonight if it wanted to and that's why we are supporting the


amendment on the order paper and I just want to very briefly, in


support of that document, referred to some of the successful bills that


went under statute book in 2016-17. Just to illustrate the importance of


the private member Bill Root and the importance of sitting Fridays. So,


let's start with the merchant shipping, introduced by the member


of Salisbury, an important piece of legislation that emits from the


Colonel Justice and Public order act the sections which became a acts


Cranford business from the crew of merchant ships. The really important


piece of deflation that makes -- piece of legislation that eliminate


a very serious piece of discrimination. That is homosexual


acts in the merchant Navy. We took it out of the Bill in the Armed


Forces, get could not get that Bill taken out for the merchant Navy.


That came forward as a private members Bill rather than the


government taking their time to actually do it. My honourable friend


strengthens and enhances the point that I am making. We need the route


offered by Private Members' Bills to deal with important issues such as


that. And then, something that I think there's already been referred


to by the SNP fragments, the very important measure introduced by the


previous measure relating to the then we are victims of domestic


violence. Someone came from the Friday route and even now I don't


think that the government has acted on the instructions of the House,


rather then trying to prevent the democratic rights of the spread


house perhaps the government might be better off making sure that the


democratic will of this House is observed in letter and spirit.


Finally I just want to make reference to two pieces of


legislation previous 220 16-17, that, in my case did not make it


onto the statute book immediately they did in the end become law and


that was the dangerous dogs legislation. This made it possible


to prosecute people when attacks were made by dogs on private


property. It took years to get it on the statute book, about five years,


but we got there in the end but it was the private menu putt members


Bill and Friday sittings that made that happen. It was a cooperation in


2015 both entrenches the # Frontbenchers in the closing month


that that made that legislation possible. Why can't we have that


cooperation now. If you believe in consensus, act on it and give us the


time on Fridays. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker I will be brief.


Unusually, I find myself in agreement with the honourable men


Rita Shipley. -- member for Shipley. We are in a situation where you're


perpetuating myth, and the myth is that we as individual backbench


members of Parliament are legislators. Except in very few


cases, were not. Although, the reality is that any building that is


brought forward, if it doesn't attract the veto of the honourable


member for Shipley and Emily chose to join him, then it will most


probably be procedurally talked out by a minister who was then that


despite bucks and make sure that that Bill -- dispatch box and make


sure that Bill does not get past. We as a house must decide that we must


make the system work. It is a sham and we are fooling the public into


believing that those will be passed that never stand a snowballs chance


in hell. It's fitting on a day that started after me, and perhaps other


people, listening to an excerpt from night of the living dead to


commemorate the passing of George Romero, who was the creator of the


modern-day zombie. Twice in one evening we are discussing this


zombie government that the benches opposite have become. Because, while


it has lost its majority and some would say its authority, when it


does have control of, the parliamentary timetable, it is


turning the screws on that. So we are now hearing about the


disappearing opposition days and we now turn to Private Members' Bills.


I listen to the what the Leader of the House said and it was great in


the extreme. We still have idea whether we love the commensurate


days of increase it should be 26 days and not 13. When I think of


some of the contents of that manifesto, the ill-fated


Conservative manifesto that didn't make it to the Queen's speech, so,


the dementia tax, I remember it was in my own constituency when the


Prime Minister came and she came a bit unstuck about one of my


constituents are doing with her on the doorstep. Think about the 25


year environment plan, grammar schools, fox hunting, all these big


policies, and the fact that the First Minister said that the


Conservatives Private members 's bills are a good


way to plug the gap. It has been said before, our constituents sent


us to this place because they want to debate issues and vote on


legislation. Both the private members bills on a Friday and the


observation days on a Friday, that is where I cut my teeth. I went


through a string of different, I was never lucky enough to have my blue


sky thinking translated to something in the statute book. The oft


patented drugs Bill, my honourable friend, the homes fitfully human


habitation Bill, the hospital parking charges, my honourable


friend for Burnley, they never saw the light of day because it was


never busted out of existence. This parliament as well. Sorry, this


year, 2016, the ones that did make it were the ones that had


fingerprints all over them. The hand-out bills. I had someone go on


about their favourite pop groups on a radio station, and from the


outside, it is a denial of democracy and it looks bad. When Private


member 's bills are given time that they need, and debated properly, it


is parliament at its best. People remember September 2015, that was a


Friday when a lot of people came in. The numbers were 118-330, so it is


possible to get people there on a Friday if things are given time. It


didn't change the law, but the debates had a good airing. The SNP


mentioned the Istanbul convention vote on a Friday, just this February


come vital legislation to stop violence against women and girls. It


seems the zombie parliament of chuntering continuing on, Private


members bills, you can even construct a long list of things that


have changed the way modern society operate, the origins of which are in


Private members bills. Committing of homosexual acts between two


consenting adults over 21 in 1957, the end of the death penalty, the


legalisation of abortion, those came from private members bills. Even


hunting with dogs popped up several times, it was under a Labour


government that fox hunting was outlawed. Plans to have a free vote


on it this time seemed to have fallen out. People say the


procedural committee has recommended reforms to Private members bills.


Reversing the debate doesn't seem to be one that this government is


entertaining at all, they have dismissed those concerns out of


hand. We have seen in this Parliament how my honourable friend


the Holland Walthamstow have secured something of a revenge for the


backbenches. That happens in a zombie government. That should be


encouraged with private members bills getting proper commensurate


timing for a two-year parliament, 26 days, nothing less. It is part of a


pattern. No select committees to be constituted until the autumn. In the


last Parliament, we saw the withdrawal of short money. If you


look at that manifesto, the manifesto of the Conservatives from


2017, a lot of liberal constitutional stuff in there. For


example, soldiering on with the boundary review, on 2015


registrants, an election that won't happen until 2022, or will it? Do


they know something we don't? What I would like to say is, this has gone


beyond something for constitutional anoraks. A new petition last year


got signatures for the reform of Private members Bill 's procedures.


I urge everyone to support this amendment for a pro rata allocation


of the time for debate, 26 days, nothing less. Don't let the zombies


win, because democracy will be the loser. Chris Bryant. I beg to move


the amendment, B, which is in my name on the order paper. I refer to


the honourable member of the Shipley. He says I should declare my


interest. I would argue, actually, of all the members in this House, I


probably have the least interest in extending the number of days this


year, because I came top of the ballot. It is the members at five


and ten, and 15, and 20, who maybe have a greater interest in this. But


I hope that he and I hope all honourable members of this House


will unite on the 20th of October, and will turn up here for a vote for


a Bill that makes sure emergency workers don't get spat at and


attacked when they are doing their work. I hope that will attract not


only the support of him, briefly, but also of government ministers as


well. But we are yet to say. He said in his contribution that the


standing orders say, quite rightly, he says, there will be 13 Private


member 's days in a session. When it is a short session, that isn't true.


The truth of the matter is, we are in a bit of a conundrum here. What


the government has the power over is to decide the length of the session.


That is why I think it is only fair play for the government to say, when


it is a two-year session, there should be two years worth of Private


members days. He says they should be a second ballot. That might be a


great idea, but the only person that can table that amendment is the


government. We can't. If we table it, it is not selectable as an


amendment to today's business. There is no way we could have tabled that


today. The only thing open to us is to table the extra 13 days. To be


absolutely clear, what my amendment does is add another 13 days, and I


think, therefore, gives many honourable members and right


honourable members, a further opportunity to get legislation on


the statute book. Why does it matter? What is the first


thing you asked by every sixth form student at school? If you have a


chance to change the law, what is the one thing you would do? We are


used to answering that question. Sometimes, we get that opportunity.


I think more of us should have that opportunity. In this two-year


parliament, we could have ten minute rule bills, we could have members


from the Private members Bill ballot, and I will not give way, I


look forward to him just say yes on 20th October. The other point here


is, if the government wanted to, it could make a session of Parliament


last five years. Then would it only be 13 days the private members


bills? In theory, yes. But I would say according to the laws of justice


in this House, I would say not. Why do I not trust the government on


this? Because I have thought, when the Leader of the House said a


couple of times on Thursday morning, she said, she is minded to look at


adding extra days. Then she tabled a motion that allows the 13 days


through to the 23 November 2018. That does not suggest to me,


somebody that thinks they should be the proportionate number for two


years. I think that is an instance, in this case, where we are not being


given the odd and straight. That is why I tabled the extra 13 days. I do


believe, if the government wins the vote today, the Leader of the House


will come back to say there should be any more days at all. Madam


Deputy 's Mika, I end with two points. -- Madam Deputy Speaker.


When Richard Crossman introduced the legislation standing order we are


dealing with today, he made allowance the 22 private members


days a year. He said this reflects the increasing importance which


Private member 's bills have assured in the last year or two. I am


pleased to see from published that honourable members are paired to


come forward. That was in 1967 when they had just passed a Bill that


partially decriminalised homosexuality. It didn't go the


whole way. It took a considerable period for that happen. A Labour


government had to push it through the House of lords with the


Parliament act where we were given an equal age of consent. It started


as a Private members Bill, and was given a government Bill. The end of


the death penalty came through because Private members at a month


after month, after month, and actually, votes for women happened


year after year, people tabled Private members bills, and made


Parliament make its mind up. In 1980, the first votes for women were


allowed 100 years ago. Tomorrow, it will be the 50th anniversary of the


parcel decriminalisation of homosexuality. I say to honourable


members, every single one of you will want to have been involved in


something as historic as that. Every single one of us would like to have


done something as historic as that. If we hung up our boots, or the


voters chucked us out at the next general election, absolutely fine.


All we are trying to do today is say, "You know what, we could make


Private members legislation better. " We could make good bills that


don't depend on government ministers, and that is why I beg,


urge and implore members opposite, those of you who I know are real


parliamentarians and would desperately love to have had


something as significant as what we are talking about to vote for the


event went -- the amendment tonight. You know you will have done a good


thing. The Member for Rhondda in the last debate talk about the power of


the executive in terms of not just controlling the agenda of this


place, but also in terms of ensuring that laws, which obviously are in


manifestos and get through, but we are in a unique position in this


Parliament. A two-year session, the important thing is, Private members


bills should be used, and have been referred to by my honourable friend,


the Member for Sutton and Devonport, and for Rhondda, but they are big


legislation, sometimes too hot for government to vote through but they


go through as Private members bills. It makes a real difference to


people's lives. It comes from private members else. The Christmas


Day trading act 2004, which means large shops can't open on a


Christmas Day. It is good for shop workers that are forced to work on


Christmas Day. In that same session, Jim Sheridan, the gang licensing act


that brought in tough regulation in terms of time to protect those that


exploit. ideas, in terms of making real


change in people's lives. In terms of the argument put forward by the


government, and I was a bit concerned when the Leader of the


House said that she was minded to adapt conditional days. I'd like to


know how many additional day she would like to use but that is the


criteria for using those additional days? The logic that has only gone


through is that 13 days over a two-year session. The only argument


that the membership we is making and that is that is the hands of the


government if they wish to have another ballot for private members


to bring further amendment. As my honourable friend the Member for


connoisseurs. Reset in the 2015 16 session the actual number of bills


at came through successfully did not come through the ballot that came


through private mentor was legislation Thomas said it was, and


the idea somehow that he argument that they were given an unfair


advantage, I'm not sure it's going to be the case. It will allow others


to put forward private bills to get them onto the statute books. Now, I


know the honourable member for Shipley thinks of himself as a great


filibuster, can I say he pales into significance -- insignificance when


it came to the honourable member for Bronwyn Bromley, the great Eric for


because I managed to get rid of my bills through because he wanted to


stop one further down the agenda. The Pope made by the SNP is this


issue around how we deal with parliamentary legislation will stop


it was the one proposal to move it onto a Tuesday and Wednesday night,


so that it would a loud Parliament -- allow Parliament debate debate


there and possibly get round the points that have been made by


members of the SNP about travelling on a Friday. Etc. Is this an area


that is right for a river? Yes it is. Certainly -- ripe for reform,


yes, it is. Certainly for our constituents. Part of this


legislation is important -- parliamentary legislation is


important. Whether it's a mistake or it's just a matter of keeping the


debt is clear whether it's a way of making sure that nothing


controversial comes forward in the next two years, because they may


have a situation where some of their backbench would vote for issues


which are not the in favour of the government, but there is the


fundamental point that the Member for Rhondda makes, which is that the


should be opportunities in this paste to change legislation. -- then


this place to change legislation. The member from Stockbridge Rosie


was sure about the homosexual act in the merchant number -- Navy, that


was actually in the Armed Forces Bill MSc managed to get it changed


and then somebody picks it up to make sure that discriminatory


legislation was taken out in terms of the merchant Navy. Again, that


had been around for many years but it was only because of our scrutiny


of that legislation that that change was actually made into legislation


in both the military and in the merchant Navy. So, I would support


the amendment put down. It was nonsense to suggest that somehow, by


giving us additional days, the world is going to stop. No, it is not. But


it will allow is to allow bank benches -- backbenchers to ensure


that their voices are heard and make a real difference in trying to get


some of those bills even pass the honourable member for Shipley. White


the question is... White the question that amendment ably made as


member of the opinions say aye. Those opposition say no. Clear the


lobby. Nic White lists for


that members say aye. Tellers for the no,


Nigel Adams and Dave Rockley. The ayes to the right, 285. The noes


to the left, 215. The ayes to the right, 285. The noes


to the left, 315. The noes have it. The noes have it. Mr Bryant to move


amendment B. The question is that amendment B be made. Clear the


lobby. Order. The question is that


amendment B be made. As many of that opinion say aye. On the contrary,


say no. Tell us for the noes.


Live coverage of the day's proceedings in the House of Commons including an urgent question on Saudi Arabia, a statement on schools in England and emergency debate on the scheduling of parliamentary business, followed by a general debate on the abuse and intimidation of candidates and the public during the general election campaign.