European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Farrelly

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before we come to the intervention, there is a point of order; I hope it is not a point of frustration.

[Paul Farrelly]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am reading here in the media for the first time a ministerial statement from the Secretary of State purporting to explain how “neutral terms” would operate in practice, and I assume that you have seen the statement, Mr Speaker. It says:

“Under the Standing Orders of the House of Commons it will be for the Speaker to determine whether a motion when it is introduced by the Government under the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is or is not in fact cast in neutral terms and hence whether the motion is or is not amendable.”

Therefore, Mr Speaker, my question to you is this: what discretion does that leave you in practice if such a motion is cast in time-honoured neutral terms in the first place?

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Farrelly

Wednesday 7th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman, but I have another point of order first.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Not at this time. I say to the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), who is an experienced denizen of the House, that there will be opportunities through the business question and subsequently for her to draw the attention of the House again, and perhaps in more detail, to her concerns and to elicit a ministerial reply.

[Paul Farrelly]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask your advice on how the House can put on the record its concern that the Conservative manifesto in 2017, with its promise to scrap Leveson 2 and section 40, pre-empted the results of a consultation that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport was carrying out. How can we be sure, particularly given the comments of Sir Brian Leveson, that that decision was reached fairly and reasonably and will not be subject to judicial review?

[Mr Speaker]

I will say two things in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, he seeks and perhaps over-generously expects from me a degree of reassurance and even of wisdom that it is not within the capacity of the Chair to provide. Secondly, in asking how we—meaning the House as a whole—can be sure, I simply say that the hon. Gentleman, who is no stranger to these matters, raises something of a philosophical question. Whether, when and to what degree Members can be confident of certainty are not matters that can be broached now from the Chair. However, in so far as he was seeking—as the puckish grin on his face suggests—to register his own concerns, he has found his own salvation.

Early Parliamentary General Election

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Farrelly

Wednesday 19th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Prime Minister is perfectly well able to fend for herself, but what the hon. Gentleman has said is a breach of order and I must ask him to withdraw it. He is versatile in the use of language—he used to pen articles for newspapers; he is a journalist—so withdraw, man, and use some other formulation if you must. At the very least, however, withdraw it.

[Paul Farrelly]

I am very happy to withdraw and reformulate what I said. Why does the Prime Minister have such a complicated and loose relationship with giving the country a clear indication of her intentions?

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Farrelly

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 13th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Lady agree that this is not only an issue of principle, in regard to parliamentary sovereignty and having a meaningful say, but an issue of good practice? We should not swallow the argument of an incentive to offer the worst possible deal. Lords amendment 2 would instil discipline and accountability in the Government as well as among our negotiating partners, because at any stage the Prime Minister would be able to say, “I can’t agree to that, because I have to sell it to Parliament.”

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Interventions must be brief. We have very little time.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Farrelly

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I will come to the hon. Gentleman. I am saving him for a suitable point.

I shall briefly respond to the point of order made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and to the response from the Leader of the House. It is of course a matter of fact that the Privileges Committee will not contain lay members. The House has made its own judgment on that matter. It is also a matter of fact that it falls to the Government to take the lead in the establishment of that Committee. It is not a matter for the Chair. It is further a matter of fact—noted by the hon. Member for Rhondda and accepted by the Leader of the House—that that Committee will have a substantial amount of work to do, and that a certain urgency attaches to it. Some of that work hails from matters that came to the attention of the House—and received much wider scrutiny in the media elsewhere—up to four years ago. It is therefore essential that that Committee be established soon. I have every confidence that the Leader of the House will now expedite the matter without any further delay.

[Paul Farrelly]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have given notice to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport that I shall be raising this point of order. Following the phone hacking scandal and the Leveson inquiry, the House agreed a package of measures to strengthen the independent self-regulation of the press. They included sections 40 to 42 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which were designed to create an incentive to join a recognised regulator and to protect public interest journalism in libel and privacy cases. However, those measures still need a commencement order from the Government. In a speech to the Society of Editors this week, the Secretary of State said:

“I am not convinced the time is right for the introduction of these costs provisions”.

This is a major change of stance by the Government over a key Leveson recommendation, and arguably one that thwarts the will of the House, yet it was not announced here in the Chamber or during questioning in front of the Select Committee last month. What steps can we, and you Mr Speaker, take to ensure that the Secretary of State makes such announcements to the House first, rather than doing so outside, to a favoured captive audience?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and for his courtesy in giving me notice of it. On the basis of what he has told me in writing, I have to tell him that it is not for me to conclude whether there has been a change of policy or not. I leave others to make that judgment. However, it is a long-established principle in this place that if a Minister has a policy announcement to make, that announcement should first be made to the House. The Minister concerned will therefore have to consider whether he or she believes that a change is involved, and to draw the appropriate conclusions. The hon. Gentleman is a sufficiently adroit and dextrous Member of the House to be well aware, if he is dissatisfied with the development of events in the coming days, of the toolkit available to Members to draw the urgent attention of the House to a matter that they believe warrants its consideration.

Privilege

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Farrelly

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), on his excellent introduction. I agree very strongly with the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who has just left the Chamber. Not a single member of the legal profession—not a single legal adviser to News International—has resigned their services when they knew that evidence that was being given to the Committee was false and misleading, and that is an issue for the legal profession to consider.

I will be brief, because I believe our report’s conclusions are clear and speak for themselves. Our Committee has pursued the issue of phone hacking and how it reflects on press standards for five long years and, sadly, because of the forthcoming criminal trials, this might not be the final word. As the House has already heard, so as not to prejudice any prosecutions, we have taken great care in what we have said.

The report is not just about phone hacking per se; it is about the integrity of the Select Committee system in Parliament. Two years ago, in our report on “Press standards, privacy and libel”, on the evidence we found it “inconceivable” that News International’s “one rogue reporter” defence could possibly be true. Yet on the same evidence, the Press Complaints Commission cleared the News of the World of wider wrongdoing and shot the messenger—The Guardian—instead. The PCC is, of course, now on the scrap heap, a busted flush, waiting for Lord Leveson to pronounce and the Government—possibly—to act on the future shape of regulation.

After revelation upon revelation from the civil cases, last summer the then chair of the PCC, Baroness Buscombe, put her hands up. At long last, she was scathing about News International’s conduct and its so-called co-operation with PCC inquiries.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I remind the House that the motion for debate is the question of whether to refer the Select Committee’s conclusions to the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. As has already been indicated, it is perfectly legitimate to record and, in a sense, almost to report to the House the basic findings of the Committee and to offer to the House, as the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee did, the background to and context for our debate. That seems eminently reasonable, but this is not an occasion to rehearse all the issues, the evidence and the chronology of events that have led to where we are today. Although I do not in any sense seek to prescribe what people should say, there could be advantage in recalling the pithy observations of the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson).

[Paul Farrelly]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and the background has been rehearsed well enough by the Chair of the Select Committee. I will now move on to what the Committee did about the lies to us, which the Press Complaints Commission’s chairman admitted when she said that there was only so much that the commission could do when people were lying to it.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I just want to be clear that the hon. Gentleman has understood what I have said and intends to be guided by it. I presume that he is adducing this material in support of the proposition that the report should be considered by the Standards and Privileges Committee.

[Paul Farrelly]

You are right, as always, Mr Speaker.

On the conclusions of the report that we are asking the House to note, if “collective amnesia” was the one phrase from our 2010 report that echoed long afterwards, I hope that our “wilful blindness” conclusion will be one of those that resounds with the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges this time. That is the wilful turning of a blind eye to wrongdoing, not just phone hacking, over a period of time as long as any repercussions could be contained through the exercise, if need be, of raw press political power.

We were invited to lay most, if not all, of the blame for the cover-up on just two executives through News International’s damage-limitation exercise—Tom Crone, the company’s long-time in-house lawyer, and Colin Myler, the new and final editor of the News of the World. In our report, after months of deliberation and very patient amendment, with very skilful chairing, we declined that very unappealing invitation. As we navigated the issue of possible prosecutions, we asked whether it could be right to find wanting just a few executives who had so far not been arrested. We wondered whether it would be right, based on the evidence, to limit a critical verdict in our report if not just to one rogue reporter or one rogue newspaper, to just one rogue subsidiary, News International. After careful deliberation, we decided that it would not be right.

During that time, the group’s founder, Rupert Murdoch, and his son James were directors both of the parent company, News Corporation, and of News International. At the same time, News International misrepresented the investigations it had actually undertaken and attacked the Select Committee remorselessly, and its executives authorised surveillance on certain members of the Committee. So, we found that it was important that the report, based on the evidence, drew a strong corporate conclusion about a culture that was set right from the top. I conclude by drawing the House’s attention to the final sentence of paragraph 275 on page 84 of the report:

“In failing to investigate properly, and by ignoring evidence of widespread wrongdoing, News International and its parent News Corporation exhibited wilful blindness, for which the companies’ directors—including Rupert Murdoch and James Murdoch—should ultimately be prepared to take responsibility”.

I commend the motion to the House.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Farrelly

Monday 11th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. First, I have repeatedly stressed—and I do so again—that important statements of policy, including changes of policy, should be made first to the House. Secondly, the Prime Minister, to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred, will be here in the House, if not before Wednesday, then on Wednesday to respond to questions. The right hon. Gentleman and other Members may seek to catch my eye on that occasion if they are so minded. Thirdly, he will have noticed that when statements are made, in an attempt always to protect the interests of the House as a whole—and in particular the interests of Back-Bench Members—I am inclined to let them run fully, so that Back Benchers have a full and unvarnished opportunity to question the Minister, whoever that Minister may be, and however senior he or she may be.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Further to the earlier point of order, Mr Speaker. The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport has followed phone hacking tenaciously. In February last year we issued a report that found it inconceivable that only one rogue reporter at the News of the World knew about phone hacking. During that inquiry very senior people at the News of the World and News International testified that a so-called second investigation, in 2007, found no further evidence of wrongdoing, and News International’s lawyers wrote us a letter confirming that. However, documents passed to the Metropolitan police by News International and held by those self-same lawyers now show that this was a blatant untruth. Several inquiries into this whole affair have already been announced, but it also prompts the question whether Select Committee powers should be made more effective—from giving powers of summons through to imposing consequences when witnesses mislead and lie with impunity. On behalf of the House, may I ask you, Mr Speaker, to give some thought not only to future reform to make Select Committee powers more effective, but to discussing the issue urgently, so that we can learn the lessons of this affair with the Government and urge them to bring forward reforms to put Select Committees in this House on a par with congressional committees in the United States?

[Mr Speaker]

Once again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. With reference to the specifics of the matter to which he has referred, if a Committee feels dissatisfied with the information that it has been given, it is open to that Committee to reopen an investigation or to request the reappearance of a previous witness, as a number of Committees have already decided. In so far as he focused in the second part of his remarks on the cause of strengthened Select Committees, with greater powers, I would say to him that if the House wants more powerful Select Committees, with a number of specific new powers that they do not currently possess, the House can will it. That is not specifically for the Chair—the Chair has spoken on these matters on many previous occasions, and I think the Chair’s views are well known on these issues—but for the House to decide.

Waste Review

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Farrelly

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Five years ago the Conservatives in Newcastle-under-Lyme made exactly the same promise on weekly collections and then promptly broke it. They then spent £2.5 million with their Liberal Democrat friends on a complicated recycling scheme with 10 different bins, boxes and bags, which has turned Newcastle into a curiosity. They now cannot afford to reinstate weekly collections—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I did appeal for short questions.

[Paul Farrelly]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

One sentence.

[Paul Farrelly]

Is the Government’s pickle over this not reflective of—[Interruption.]

Higher Education Fees

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Farrelly

Thursday 9th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. [Interruption.] Order. [Interruption.] Order. I understand the passions, but the more noise, the greater the delay and the fewer the number of Members who will have a chance to contribute. I want Back Benchers to have the chance to contribute and I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members to help me to help them.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Monday, I tabled three named day questions relating to the evidence underpinning Government policy. They were about what studies the Government have commissioned about the potential impact of these higher fees on participation, particularly on longer courses such as languages, medicine, law and architecture and on post-graduate teaching courses. Those questions were due for answer at noon today, but answer has come there none. What can the House do, Mr Speaker, to ensure that Government better inform us with vital information so that we can properly debate subjects like this, which are of interest to the whole nation?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I am in favour of timely replies to parliamentary questions. He is an experienced hand in this House and must pursue these matters through the Table Office and in other ways; we cannot be detained now by what he has just said.

Business of the House (Thursday)

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Farrelly

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Paul Farrelly]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is simply not the case that no concerns have been raised about this procedure. I raised them in a point of order last week, if you remember, and they have been highlighted by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) in an early-day motion. How can the House correct the record?

[Mr Speaker]

May I say to the hon. Gentleman, first, that as far as he is concerned, he has just done so. Secondly, I do indeed recall his point of order, which was in fact on Monday night. I would have serious problems with my short-term memory if I did not recall it, but I do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Two hon. Members have submitted manuscript amendments which I myself saw a matter of a few minutes ago, and which, to my certain knowledge, have been submitted within the last hour or so. It is right that I give the House a verdict on the matter. I have not selected either of the amendments. There was plenty of time in which manuscript amendments could have been submitted: they could have been submitted much earlier in the day, but that did not happen.

It may also be helpful if I point out that the House is having—I emphasise the words “is having”—a very full debate on all the relevant issues relating to time. There has been, and continues to be for as long as the debate continues, a very good opportunity for Members who wish to argue for particular allocations of time to do so. That is the situation, and we must now move on.

[Paul Farrelly]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you tell us whether you have received any amendments to tomorrow’s motion other than from the Opposition Front-Bench team, and in particular whether you have received a cross-party amendment to the motion?

[Mr Speaker]

I was slightly perplexed and taken aback by that attempted point of order for the simple reason that we are not discussing tomorrow’s motion, and I am not going to get into the subject of amendments thereto. I was focusing simply on manuscript amendments tabled tonight by, I believe, the hon. Members for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) and for Glasgow South (Mr Harris). It is with that, and that alone, that I was, and am, concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. First, that intervention was too long and, secondly, the issue is not how much time visitors to the House have to raise matters with Members who might or might not be taking part in a debate; the issue is the allocation of time for Members of Parliament to debate the issues.

[Paul Farrelly]

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. What young people will take away from just five hours of debate tomorrow is the fact that going for a degree will cost them much more. They will not have any details on how they will be supported. Such information would allow them to form a considered view. Some of the evidence that I fear the House will not have time to consider tomorrow shows that, where variable fees have been introduced overseas, there is a deterrent effect. That is clear from the Ivy League in the United States. Again we will simply run out of time tomorrow to give proper consideration to the US experience.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady is very much focusing on the substance of the issue, but we must get back to the allocation of time.

[Paul Farrelly]

I am acutely aware, as my hon. Friend is, that the Government are saying on the one hand that they want the best and brightest to go into teaching, for example, yet on the other hand they are making it more difficult, and that we will not have enough time tomorrow to debate all those intricacies or how the Government plan to tackle the issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Farrelly]

Most Members of the House are very well behaved and listen politely when other Members are on their feet. Mr Speaker, I will not try your patience by going through every fee level, which we will not have time to debate, in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States, institution by institution and region by region. The fact is, however, that if the motion goes through tomorrow, we will have the highest levels of fees across the board outside the United States. The implication of that—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is in danger of catching North Durham disease. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) was fond of saying what he would not talk about before proceeding to talk about it, and I hope that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) is not going to follow suit.

[Paul Farrelly]

I apologise if I have given that impression, Mr Speaker. I take it that North Durham disease is a mining affliction; I come from a mining area myself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I have received no such indication. I did not invite it and it has not been proffered. That is the situation. I think it is fair to say that the hon. Gentleman’s point is not a point of order but a point of inquiry, which is not quite the same thing.

[Paul Farrelly]

Just to conclude my response to the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), we need that vital time to assess the implications for all those people in those situations.

Local Government Funding

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Farrelly

Monday 6th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the next motion on the Order Paper is about the time the House will have to debate university tuition fees, which is a huge issue for students and their families in this country. In 2003, the White Paper was published a full year before the vote, and in 2005, whether some of us liked the policy or not, the Government put their proposals to the general public at an election. In contrast, this year nobody voted for these plans and we have been told that we have only three hours for debate and no time for discussion of whether that is a proper amount of time for the House. Mr Speaker, could you advise us how the House can place on record its unease about how the vote is, frankly, being rushed through, and how coalition Ministers are running scared of proper debate and examination of their plans?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s inquiry about how best he can register his concern is that, as I think he knows, he has just done so. It is very clearly on the record. As a very experienced Member of this House, he will also be aware that the form of such a motion and the question of whether it is debatable is not a matter for the Chair. However, the hon. Gentleman has registered the point and I hope that he feels pleased to have done so.