Committee on Standards: Cox Report

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected a manuscript amendment in the name of John Stevenson, copies of which are in the Vote Office and which is also available online.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Spellar]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Lady is not giving way. We have not got much time.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Dame Laura Cox QC’s inquiry looked into the bullying and harassment of House of Commons staff. Naomi Ellenbogen QC is conducting a similar inquiry on the House of Lords side, and Gemma White QC is currently conducting a broader inquiry into employees on the Commons side. All of the many different employment situations in the House will be covered by a one-off review of historic complaints.

Dame Laura Cox published her report into the bullying and harassment of House of Commons staff in October last year. There were three key recommendations in that report, which the House of Commons Commission agreed and committed to taking forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. It is obvious that a great many people wish to speak, but there is hardly any time, so I am imposing a time limit of three minutes on Back-Bench speeches.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is not customary to impose a time limit when the debate would cease if a closure is not put on the motion.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

It is customary to impose a time limit when the person in the Chair can easily see that the demand for time is far greater than the supply. I am therefore imposing a time limit. I call John Stevenson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The Question is as on the Order Paper—[Interruption.]

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

I was not aware that this was a time-limited debate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I beg your pardon? Is this a point of order?

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My understanding was that the debate proceeds until there is a closure motion.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

No, I have taken the decision that, as there was only 10 seconds before 10 pm, I would, as usual, put the Question. [Interruption.] I will take the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order after I have put the Question. The Question is as on the Order Paper. As many as of that opinion say aye.

[Hon. Members]

Aye.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Of the contrary, no.

[Hon. Members]

No! No!

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Division. Clear the Lobby.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

There do not appear to be any tellers, Madam Deputy Speaker, but there is a point of order.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The Question is as on the Order Paper. As many as of that opinion say aye.

[Hon. Members]

Aye.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Of the contrary, no. The ayes have it.

Question put and agreed to.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that if there is no order of the House that a debate must end at a particular time, and if Members are standing at the moment of interruption, then that debate should continue at another time, when time becomes available, and not be put to a vote when Members are still standing, waiting to speak in the debate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, absolutely right in his description—[Interruption.] Order! Order! Close the doors!

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, of course, in his description of the way in which matters are dealt with at the point of interruption. I took the decision this evening that, as there were 10 seconds left before 10 pm, that was the point at which I should put the Question. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who was on her feet at 9.59 and 51 seconds—I was watching very carefully—had the courtesy to sit down just before 10 o’clock in order that I might put the Question. I took the decision that the Question ought to be put to the House, as it was the moment for the Question to be put. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that it was not right for the hon. Lady to sit down with nine seconds to spare, I think he is really splitting hairs. I understand very well the point that he is making, but I took the decision that nine or 10 seconds meant that we were at the point of interruption and that no one else could have made a meaningful speech in those nine seconds. Of course, I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s point, which was also made by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) in a point of order earlier in the evening, that it is possible for a Member to speak through the point of interruption, and that then there could be no vote and no decision.

My decision and my ruling from the Chair this evening has been that my reading of this Chamber was that the vast majority of Members in this Chamber wanted to have a decision on this matter this evening. I agreed with the right hon. Gentleman earlier that it is a great pity that today we had urgent questions lasting for some two hours and eight minutes that were somewhat repetitive, and that we then had statements lasting for three hours and two minutes that were also rather repetitive. As I said to the right hon. Gentleman in answer to his point of order earlier this evening, these matters are in the hands of Members. If Members insist on having their voice heard again and again, making the same point on the same matter, we will be in a position whereby an important debate such as the one that has just concluded has not had nearly enough time, but these matters are in the hands of Members.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I will of course allow the right hon. Gentleman to make a further point of order if he so wishes.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

It is verging on impertinence, Madam Deputy Speaker, but could you share with us the rationale for your decision, rather than allowing the debate to proceed, which it would otherwise have done had you not terminated it at the moment of interruption? We could then have explored all those constitutional issues that were raised ever so briefly during the short time that we had.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I will answer the right hon. Gentleman’s further point of order by saying this: it has become the practice in this House that everybody who stands up to speak thinks that they have an automatic right to do so in that debate at the point when they stand up to speak. But as the right hon. Gentleman will recall, when he and I were new young Members of this House—some decades ago—it was perfectly normal for us to sit there, hour after hour, and not be called. It was perfectly normal for 100 people to rise at the beginning of an urgent question or a statement, but for only 30 to be called. It was perfectly normal for people to write to the Speaker and say that they would like to speak in a particular debate, but for only half of them to get to do so. I am terribly sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has been disappointed this evening because, of course, his seniority means that it is normal that he is called in a debate, near the beginning of the debate, but many Members really ought to get used to the fact that it is not an automatic right to speak for as long as they wish, whenever they wish, because there are 650 Members of this place and it is important to balance the rights of one as against the rights of all the others.