Remote Voting

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the Leader of the House to move motion 6, I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment to the motion in the name of Karen Bradley. The amendment will be debated together with the main motion, and the Questions necessary to dispose of the motion will be put at the end of the debate. I call the Leader of the House.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

I beg to move,

That the following orders be made and have effect until 12 May:

Remote divisions

(1) A remote division may be held only in respect of business taken in hybrid substantive proceedings.

(2) With the leave of the Speaker, the Member in charge of an item of business may designate it as subject to decision by a remote division and if so whether that divisions should be a deferred remote division.

(3) The Speaker shall determine whether a remote division is required and may announce that determination before putting the question.

(4) Standing Orders Nos 38, 40 and 41A (save as provided in temporary standing order (Conduct of remote divisions)) shall not apply to proceedings relating to remote divisions.

(5) If, when the question is put on an item of business which has not been designated to be decided by a remote division, the Speaker’s opinion as to the decision on the question is challenged, the question shall not be decided and the House shall move to the next business.

Conduct of remote divisions

(1) Members shall participate in a remote division or a remote deferred division through arrangements authorised by the Speaker.

(2) A remote division shall be initiated when the Speaker puts the question and announces that it will be decided by a remote division.

(3) No tellers shall be appointed for a remote division.

(4) Members may record their vote in a remote division for a period of fifteen minutes from its initiation.

(5) The Speaker may interrupt and suspend a remote division if notified of a technical problem.

(6) The result of a remote division shall be declared from the Chair.

(7) The House may proceed to its next business before the result of a remote division is declared and the Speaker may interrupt subsequent proceedings in order to announce the result.

(8) A remote deferred division shall be held in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (5) of Standing Order No 41A and this order. If, after the result of a remote division or a remote deferred division has been announced, it is reported to the Speaker that problems in the conduct of the division occurred which might have affected the result, the Speaker may declare the division to be null and void and may make arrangements for it to be re-run.

I think it is fair to say that I am surprised to be moving a motion to introduce remote voting in the House of Commons. In general, I am not an advocate of change to the House’s voting system or, to be perfectly honest, to many other things. Lord Palmerston’s words ring in my mind:

“Change, change, change: aren’t things bad enough already?”

I am strongly of the view that our current approach is the best one, but as I said yesterday, parliamentary procedure is not an end in itself but a means to allow the institution to function successfully. We are facing a particular set of circumstances that have required us to be innovative so that we can ensure that the House of Commons can both scrutinise the Government and continue to legislate. I am bringing forward this motion alongside the other one today because it makes sense for the House to consider it on the same day as it takes a view on extending hybrid proceedings.

It may help the House if I briefly talk through the motion. What was originally section K establishes the framework for a system of remote voting for hybrid substantive business. As we begin to bring forward Government motions, including on legislative proceedings for remote debate, we will be able to designate whether those motions are to be subject to a new remote voting process, or to a remote deferred division process. If we choose not to designate a motion in this way, under the terms of paragraph (5), the motion becomes subject to a decision on a “nod or nothing” basis. The House agreed yesterday, in the resolution on proceedings during the pandemic, that we must aim for equal treatment between those participating in proceedings in the Chamber and those participating remotely. In the absence of remote voting, any division called would be subject to physical division. In the current circumstances, we cannot create a situation that encourages Members physically to attend proceedings in Westminster.

The detailed arrangements for how remote voting will work will, under section L, be set out by you, Mr Speaker. Under the new system, remote divisions would become a process administered by the House, with the result delivered directly to the Speaker. Votes in a remote division would be expected to be cast in a 15-minute window, and in a deferred division during the usual 11.30 am to 2 pm slot on Wednesdays. I have tested the new arrangements, which operate via the Members’ Hub interface. I must confess that that was the first time I had ever used the Members’ Hub interface, but I understand that it is very widely used.

I am grateful to the House authorities, particularly staff in the Parliamentary Digital Service, for their work on developing the Division tool so quickly. I know that they are keen to facilitate further testing next week, including with Members, which will be crucial to build confidence in the new system. I am keen that the testing happens ahead of the Government designating any business for remote divisions. Let me be clear: we are not intending to designate any business for remote divisions next week. It will not happen that fast.

Amendment (a) was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), the Chair of the Procedure Committee. May I start by reiterating the sincere thanks to her and her Committee for their rapid work? I appreciated the opportunity to join the Committee in a private session last week and to be able to set out the Government’s thoughts. The Committee has produced a substantial and immensely helpful report, and I know that the Committee will continue to play a key role.

As I said yesterday, I am very much aware that the Committee has some specific concerns about moving to electronic voting. I think it is safe to say, and not unduly indiscreet of me, that I probably share a number of those concerns. I have listened carefully to the Committee and am grateful for the conversations that I have been able to have with its Chairman. I understand and accept the need for the Procedure Committee to be assured that the remote voting technology works, and for the Committee to have time to express its views on the matter. However, I would ask whether the Chairman would consider withdrawing her amendment in exchange for a formal commitment from the Government today. If this motion passes, I can confirm that we will not designate any Divisions subject to these new arrangements until the Committee has examined the proposed scheme and the Chairman has written to me to set out the Committee’s views on the scheme and whether it considers it to be workable. I would be most grateful if the Chairman in turn could commit to that work being carried out by the Committee as quickly as possible.

I fully understand that this motion is proposing a significant change in the way we do our business. I am grateful to the Procedure Committee for the key role that it will play, and I am committed to listening carefully to the views of Members across the House as we develop these new and temporary ways of working. Let me stress that again: this would be a temporary change, driven by the need for the House to continue to make progress on key legislation and to give Members the right to have their say. I therefore hope that the House can support the motion, which I commend to it.

[Mr Speaker]

It may be helpful to point out that it is only if the amendment is moved that we will need to worry. It may not be moved.

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Let me hear what the Committee Chair has to say first.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I rise to speak to amendment (a), which is, after paragraph (5), to insert:

“6) paragraphs (1) to (4) of this Order shall not have effect until the Speaker takes the Chair on the sitting day after the Chair of the Procedure Committee shall have reported to the House a resolution of that Committee that

(a) it is expedient to use remote divisions during the period for which this Order has effect and

(b) the arrangements authorised by the Speaker are appropriate to be used in remote divisions and remote deferred divisions.”

The amendment stands in my name and those of several Committee colleagues and others.

The Leader of the House has set out succinctly and appropriately some of the concerns that my Committee has about the proposals to move to remote voting. As he said, we have looked in depth at the proposals for hybrid scrutiny, the motion on which we have just considered, and we have looked at how we deal with questions, of which we have just seen the first example happening in reality. But we have not yet had a chance to consider the proposals for remote voting, and I am therefore grateful to the Leader of the House for his comments.

I will say up front, in response to the Leader of the House’s comments, that I do not propose to move the amendment, given that he has made a commitment that, in effect, delivers what the amendment would have done, but does so in a way without the need to amend the motion. I will also give him the commitment, as he asked, that I will write to you, Mr Speaker, and to him with the Committee’s view on the proposed system within two sitting days of an assurance from the House service that it is ready to be deployed.

[Mr Speaker]

I apologise to the shadow Leader of the House for not calling her first, but I wanted to know whether the amendment would be moved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank the right hon. Lady. She is absolutely right: most of us have been pinned to our computers trying to get constituents back, and trying to help them to work out whether they have lost their job. She is right that we have been working incredibly hard. However, as with everything when there is legislation—only the substantive hybrid proceedings will involve a vote—it is right that it will be the business of the House that will be for Members to focus on. Hopefully it will be a bit more than just standing by the telephone. As I said, I have not had the run-through and I would certainly like it.

There are other ways of voting, which hon. Members may not like. In the Welsh Assembly, they actually have a roll call. That is one way of doing it. On the subject of the Whips, we will miss the cheeky face of my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) guiding us in. Maybe he can pop up on the computer. That human interaction is very important, but the key thing, as we have all said, is that that is the way the House operated; we have to move to a new position now because of the pandemic, to keep Members safe. Any way that we can do that remotely, keeping everyone safe while ensuring that House staff are also safe and that the voting is secure, is very important. We know that we have the technology to do that, because people do it for the Eurovision song contest.

[Mr Speaker]

I am not sure that that is so secure, with those results.

[Valerie Vaz]

I am not sure that the Leader of the House wants to hear this, but I think the European Parliament also operates some kind of remote electronic voting. Perhaps we will not go there, given that it has the word “Europe” in it, which has been expunged from our parliamentary vocabulary.

I thank the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley). She and her Committee do an assiduous job. We have all appeared before it and, quite rightly, been given a hard time. Her predecessor did that too. Her Majesty’s Opposition support the motion as set out by the Leader of the House.

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me, Mr Speaker, perhaps unexpectedly, in the course of this afternoon’s brief proceedings. Observant Members will have noticed the flurry of Whips who have entered the Chamber, which is always a sign of distress for us mere ordinary Members, but let me remind every Member of this House that we are all sent on an equal basis to this place by our constituents to make representations on their behalf.

I attempted a moment ago to raise a point of order, perhaps not being au fait with the radical measures that were taken yesterday preventing Members from doing so.

[Mr Speaker]

Actually, you can make a point of order; I just wanted first to hear whether the amendment would be moved. If you wish to make a point of order, I can take one at this stage, but I thought that you would prefer to speak instead.

[Mr Wragg]

I am most grateful for that clarification, Sir. The point I wished to raise was one of procedure. Given his extensive understanding of how this place works, my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council would have known the answer to this. The question was whether it was perfectly orderly for a Member to add their name to an amendment, although not printed on the Order Paper, while it was in the possession of the House, and whether they could move that amendment, even if the lead Member wished not to. That was the point that I wished to make.

A lot of things are being done in haste, and I appreciate entirely the need to do so given the situation that we are in. It is right that a number of Members are present in the Chamber and can demonstrate the same guidance that we are giving to our constituents—for example, those who email us frequently with their concerns about working in depots and factories and on construction sites.

It is right and proper that a number of us should be in the Chamber to demonstrate social distancing in this way. I merely ask the Government to be careful what they wish for, because I do not think that some of the measures, despite the protestations of wishing to get back to normality in some swift way, will be successful in getting back to that normality.

I accept the need to move quickly. Everybody regrets the situation that we are now in, but it is vital that Back Benchers should have the ability, even in these times of great uncertainty, to make important representations on behalf of their constituents.

[Mr Wragg]

Indeed. As well as being a distinguished member of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Gentleman is, of course, a distinguished member of his party’s Whips Office. Whenever I think of the term “usual channels”, I am reminded that, of course, even great cities need their sewers. I am sure there is a high degree of interconnectedness in all those usual channels. We need to be mindful of the times in which we are living, and that this lockdown is not equal. We are not all in this lockdown together. There is a divide between the white-collar worker and the blue-collar worker. People working in the private sector and people working in the public sector are invariably in different circumstances. Let us always have that at the forefront of our minds and ensure that proper parliamentary scrutiny of the Government’s work can continue.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member—all Members are important to this Chamber.

Proceedings during the Pandemic and Hybrid Scrutiny Proceedings

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Relevant document: First Report from the Procedure Committee, Procedure under coronavirus restrictions: proposals for remote participation, HC 300.]

[Mr Speaker]

The motions on proceedings during the pandemic and on hybrid scrutiny proceedings will be debated together. I call the Leader of the House to move the first motion.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

I beg to move,

That this House is committed to taking all steps necessary to balance its responsibilities for continuing scrutiny of the executive, legislating and representation of the interests of constituents with adherence to the guidance issued by Public Health England and the restrictions placed upon all citizens of the United Kingdom, and is further committed, in pursuit of that aim, to allowing virtual participation in the House’s proceedings, to extending the digital capacity of those proceedings to ensure the participation of all Members, and to ensuring that its rules and procedures are adapted to permit as far as possible parity of treatment between Members participating virtually and Members participating in person.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:

That the following orders be made and have effect until 12 May:

A. Scrutiny proceedings

1) The House shall meet at 2.30 pm on Mondays, and at 11.30 am on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and will first proceed with questions and statements under the orders [Hybrid scrutiny proceedings] of today.

2) Scrutiny proceedings shall conclude not later than two hours after their commencement, save that the Speaker shall have discretion to extend the proceedings for a short additional period if it seems to him appropriate to do so.

3) Following the conclusion of scrutiny proceedings, the House shall proceed with business set down to be taken at the commencement of public business and then with the main business.

4) Scrutiny proceedings comprise

a) questions to ministers;

b) urgent questions;

c) ministerial statements.

5) No question of which notice has been given under SO No. 22(5) shall be taken more than one hour after the House sits, and scrutiny proceedings shall otherwise be taken in the order determined by the Speaker who shall announce that order not later than the start of the sitting to which it relates.

6) Members may participate in scrutiny proceedings virtually, by electronic means approved by the Speaker, or by attending in the Chamber. The Speaker may limit the number of Members present in the Chamber at any one time.

7) For the purposes of proceedings under this order, Members shall give notice by electronic means designated by the Speaker.

8) Notice periods in respect of all scrutiny proceedings shall be set by the Speaker, provided that the latest date and time specified by the Speaker for questions to ministers shall be such as to enable notices to be circulated at least two days (excluding Friday, Saturday and Sunday) before the question is to be answered.

B. Urgent questions

1) In respect of any day to which order (A. Scrutiny proceedings) applies, a Member may apply to the Speaker for leave to ask an urgent question under this order.

2) An urgent question is one which, in the Speaker’s opinion, is of an urgent character and relates to a matter of public importance.

C. Supplementary provisions

1) No unopposed business, save motions for unopposed returns of which notice has been given, may be taken at the commencement of scrutiny proceedings.

2) Notices of private business may be set down to be taken at the commencement of public business after scrutiny proceedings, but, if opposed, shall not be proceeded with but shall be deferred to such time, other than a Friday, as the Chairman of Ways and Means shall appoint.

3) Standing Order Nos. 7, 8, and 21 shall not have effect and the Speaker shall be required under paragraph (5) of Standing Order No 22 to take account of the party balance while these orders are in force.

4) In any case where the Speaker has ordered the withdrawal of a Member, or of several Members, under Standing Order No 43 and is required to direct the Serjeant at Arms to give effect to the order, the Member or Members shall be suspended from the service of the House for the following sitting day.

5) No motion to sit in private may be made during scrutiny proceedings.

6) The Speaker may amend any provision of these orders, if he determines it is necessary to do so in order to ensure that the conduct of business is consistent with the Resolution of the House (Proceedings during the pandemic) of 21 April.

7) Before exercising his power under paragraph (6), the Speaker shall satisfy himself that he has the agreement of the Leader of the House.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I rise to speak to the motion on proceedings during the pandemic and, as you have explained, Mr Speaker, I will also speak to the motion on hybrid scrutiny proceedings.

Mr Speaker, may I start by thanking you and the House staff for the incredible work that has taken place during the Easter recess to allow me to move these motions today? It is worth noting that our Clerks and staff often work very long hours when the House is sitting and expect to be compensated for that in recess periods. On this occasion, we have asked them to work during the recess period too, placing a double burden upon them. I am also grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for allowing these motions to be moved without formal notice, and to House staff for arranging the publication yesterday of these motions and the accompanying explanatory note.

From tomorrow, if the House agrees these motions, we will resume oral questions, statements and urgent questions virtually. While the new digital Parliament may not be perfect—Members may launch forth into fine perorations only to be muted or snatched away altogether by an intermittent internet connection—we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The parliamentary authorities have done a superb job to get this up and running at short notice. Should the House agree these motions today, I would expect to bring forward further motions shortly so that we can extend our virtual ways of working for a longer period and to more substantive business, including legislation.

Before turning to the motions, I want to set out my gratitude to the Procedure Committee for its rapid work. These are difficult and challenging times, and these necessary changes are happening at a pace that would not be ideal in more normal times. The Procedure Committee has an essential role in advising this House on reform. I am grateful to the Committee and to its Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), for its report published today, and I commit to continuing to work closely with it. We will all want to keep under review how the procedures work. I know that the Committee has particular concerns about moving to electronic voting, and I would certainly want to work closely with the Committee on the options for that. I hope it will reassure the Committee if I say that, once we have moved to considering substantive business as well, I will be looking to make certain that we initially schedule business that is unlikely to be divided on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Valerie Vaz]

It is a matter for Mr Speaker to take points of order. That is part of the wide discretion that he has under other parts of the motion. The key thing—this is what came out of our discussions—is that we cannot interrupt proceedings where Members are up on screens virtually. It would be impossible to interrupt them with a point of order as they are speaking. There will be a way of working on that. It may well happen, but it is entirely at Mr Speaker’s discretion. Hopefully he will deal with injustices that may occur in the Chamber.

I think you suggested, Mr Speaker, that there might be a dress code for the House. Certainly there is the issue of what goes on behind Members in terms of animals, children, wallpaper and all that, as we have seen. Clearly the dress code will apply only to the Member’s top half—unless, of course, it is the Leader of the House. I know that he sometimes likes to be horizontal, so for him the dress code will in fact apply to the top half and the bottom half.

I thank everyone for getting us to this position. Subject to certain undertakings, Her Majesty’s Opposition support the motion.

[Mr Speaker]

I might be able to help Members with some of these points. This is a starting point. We want to have the resilience to build up from this point. This is not the end; it is only the beginning of moving forward. Quite rightly, people have mentioned the digital broadcasting staff. We cannot thank them enough. We have had 700 years of this House doing things one way and then we suddenly completely turn everything over and start in a new way. I can only thank them.

I assure the shadow Leader of the House that we will be looking to increase the number of hours and to ensure that we can grow the virtual Parliament. She is absolutely right that we cannot do points of order at that stage, but give us time and we will develop and increase the capabilities. I want to reassure the House that this is ongoing and that discussions will continue to take place. She is also absolutely right about voting. No decision has been taken. We want to check that voting is secure. That is the key. Every Member is worried about ensuring that when someone votes they are who they say they are. We must look at that very seriously. It will be completely checked before we do something that would not be secure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that any system needs to work, to be robust and to ensure that votes are properly registered. On points of order, as raised by both the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), I believe those can be sent to you, Mr Speaker, in written form, so it is not as if there will not be any ability to raise points; it simply will not be possible to interrupt a television screen, because that would not actually work.

I reiterate my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), Chairman of the Procedure Committee. Like her, I think all MPs have seen an enormous explosion in casework, and therefore the ability to hold Ministers to account and to get answers for one’s constituents is very important. My right hon. Friend, like other Members, including my right hon. Friends the Members for North Somerset (Dr Fox) and for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), emphasised the importance of this situation being temporary. I would not have put my name to these motions if it were not going to be temporary. I want Parliament to be back operating properly in its normal way.

However, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) pointed out, this is actually about people dying, and what we are doing is part of trying to save lives, along with the rest of the country. Yes, it is second best, and yes, it is imperfect that we should meet with these screens and with the Chamber losing its normal decoration, but we are doing our best in difficult circumstances to maintain as much as we can. The motion has effect until 12 May, and although it may have to be renewed at that point, it is temporary and will remain temporary.

I agree with the right hon. Friend the Member for Warley that this is much better than press conferences. Holding the Government to account makes for better government. This may not be a common view expressed at the Dispatch Box, but it was not that long ago that I was a Back Bencher, and Back Benchers see week in, week out, year in, year out, better decisions taken because the Government are held to account. Wise Governments—I inevitably think that this Government are wise—actually have the sense to recognise that.

My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) made the extraordinarily important, fundamental constitutional point that a Member who wishes to represent his or her constituents must be able to do so, and that is part of what we are trying to do. How that is managed, with a maximum of 50 Members in the Chamber, is a matter for Mr Speaker, but the purpose of that is to maintain safe social distancing. However, if a Member needs to get in and is on the list to be called to speak, if I am in the Chamber, I will leave to make way for that Member to come in and speak. I will go and watch it in my room on the television if I am answering the debate, so that the Member may come in and make the point.

We will have to work with each other to maintain our ancient constitutional rights. I should point out, Mr Speaker—you know it is one of my favourite points—that we have all had a right of uninterrupted, unhindered access to Parliament since 1340. It is one of our most ancient and precious rights. I assure my right hon. Friend that I would not want to be Leader of the House when that right is taken away, but it may operate differently, to ensure that it works with safeguarding.

I am grateful for the widespread support for these motions. We are all trying to do our best in difficult circumstances, which I think the House appreciates. I am very grateful, I ought to add, to the Opposition Chief Whip, who has worked closely with the Government Chief Whip and, indeed, representatives of the SNP to ensure that these proposals could be agreed.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That this House is committed to taking all steps necessary to balance its responsibilities for continuing scrutiny of the executive, legislating and representation of the interests of constituents with adherence to the guidance issued by Public Health England and the restrictions placed upon all citizens of the United Kingdom, and is further committed, in pursuit of that aim, to allowing virtual participation in the House’s proceedings, to extending the digital capacity of those proceedings to ensure the participation of all Members, and to ensuring that its rules and procedures are adapted to permit as far as possible parity of treatment between Members participating virtually and Members participating in person.

Hybrid Scrutiny Proceedings

Ordered,

That the following orders be made and have effect until 12 May:

A. Scrutiny proceedings

1) The House shall meet at 2.30 pm on Mondays, and at 11.30 am on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and will first proceed with questions and statements under the orders [Hybrid scrutiny proceedings] of today.

2) Scrutiny proceedings shall conclude not later than two hours after their commencement, save that the Speaker shall have discretion to extend the proceedings for a short additional period if it seems to him appropriate to do so.

3) Following the conclusion of scrutiny proceedings, the House shall proceed with business set down to be taken at the commencement of public business and then with the main business.

4) Scrutiny proceedings comprise

a) questions to ministers;

b) urgent questions;

c) ministerial statements.

5) No question of which notice has been given under SO No. 22(5) shall be taken more than one hour after the House sits, and scrutiny proceedings shall otherwise be taken in the order determined by the Speaker who shall announce that order not later than the start of the sitting to which it relates.

6) Members may participate in scrutiny proceedings virtually, by electronic means approved by the Speaker, or by attending in the Chamber. The Speaker may limit the number of Members present in the Chamber at any one time.

7) For the purposes of proceedings under this order, Members shall give notice by electronic means designated by the Speaker.

8) Notice periods in respect of all scrutiny proceedings shall be set by the Speaker, provided that the latest date and time specified by the Speaker for questions to ministers shall be such as to enable notices to be circulated at least two days (excluding Friday, Saturday and Sunday) before the question is to be answered.

B. Urgent questions

1) In respect of any day to which order (A. Scrutiny proceedings) applies, a Member may apply to the Speaker for leave to ask an urgent question under this order.

2) An urgent question is one which, in the Speaker’s opinion, is of an urgent character and relates to a matter of public importance.

C. Supplementary provisions

1) No unopposed business, save motions for unopposed returns of which notice has been given, may be taken at the commencement of scrutiny proceedings.

2) Notices of private business may be set down to be taken at the commencement of public business after scrutiny proceedings, but, if opposed, shall not be proceeded with but shall be deferred to such time, other than a Friday, as the Chairman of Ways and Means shall appoint.

3) Standing Order Nos. 7, 8, and 21 shall not have effect and the Speaker shall be required under paragraph (5) of Standing Order No 22 to take account of the party balance while these orders are in force.

4) In any case where the Speaker has ordered the withdrawal of a Member, or of several Members, under Standing Order No 43 and is required to direct the Serjeant at Arms to give effect to the order, the Member or Members shall be suspended from the service of the House for the following sitting day.

5) No motion to sit in private may be made during scrutiny proceedings.

6) The Speaker may amend any provision of these orders, if he determines it is necessary to do so in order to ensure that the conduct of business is consistent with the Resolution of the House (Proceedings during the pandemic) of 21 April.

7) Before exercising his power under paragraph (6), the Speaker shall satisfy himself that he has the agreement of the Leader of the House.—(Mr Rees-Mogg.)

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the House for the manner in which it has conducted this debate, to all those who have worked so hard to establish the arrangements, which will apply from tomorrow, and to the Procedure Committee for its high-speed report. Guidance for Members on the arrangements is now available online, and in hard copy from the Vote Office. I should also alert Members that the deadline for urgent questions to be taken on Tuesdays and Wednesdays will be 1 pm, not 2 pm as stated in the explanatory memorandum.

I have received a letter from the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), resigning as Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. I have also received a letter from the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) announcing her intention to resign as Chair of the Committee on Standards when her successor has been elected. I wish to pay tribute to the commitment and dedication with which both of them have chaired their respective Committees both in the present Parliament and in the last. I will make an announcement about the arrangements for elections tomorrow.

I understand that the ten-minute rule motion will not be moved.

Business of the House

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Where shall I start? I call William Wragg—[Interruption.] I apologise—I call the shadow Leader of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I understand that the ten-minute rule motion will not be moved.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Bill to be read a Second time tomorrow.

Adjournment

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—(Tom Pursglove.)

Business of the House

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I expect to run this statement until about 1.30 pm.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

I completely understand the need to send Parliament off for recess early, but huge questions are yet to be resolved, such as ensuring that all NHS and social care workers have access to the highest quality PPE that is consistent with international standards, or the massive increase in testing that we need, and have been promised. Like many other hon. Members, I have constituents who are stranded around the world in places such as Peru. I urge the Leader of the House to ensure that the Government live up to their promises on all those matters, keep our NHS and social care workers safe, and bring home those who are stranded abroad at this difficult time.

Points of Order

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am deeply saddened to share the news that my predecessor as MP for Watford, Lord Tristan Garel-Jones, passed away yesterday. His legacy in Watford is deeply cherished, as it is in this House. He was hugely respected across the constituency and, I am sure, by all Members and those in the Lords. His reputation is truly one that any MP should aspire to; I do on a daily basis. He will be deeply missed. My thoughts, and I am sure those of the whole House, are with his family at this difficult time. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to pay tribute.

[Mr Speaker]

Obviously a point of order is for the Chair, but it is quite right that we put that on the record. The thoughts of all Members of the House on all sides will come together. We give his family our most sincere thoughts and prayers at this time.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Liaison Committee has still not been set up because there were objections to the Leader of the House’s proposal to create a new piece of prime ministerial patronage, putting someone in place as Chair rather than having them elected by the House. I wonder, Mr Speaker, whether there has been any indication that that motion could be brought back by the Leader of the House at any stage without the position of Chair being included.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I might be able to help. The Liaison Committee Chair is not a matter for today. The Leader of the House may wish to clarify it and clear up any mess.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It is clear that in business put down for 22 April, there will be a debate on the formation of the Liaison Committee and the Scottish Affairs Committee, two very important Committees.

[Mr Speaker]

So we do not need to worry about it today.

Business of the House

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will deal with the second half of the hon. Gentleman’s question first, because this is an area where we want to have as much cross-party support as possible. It is of fundamental importance that we keep this place open, but it is also important that we are treated, and we treat ourselves, in the same way as the rest of the country, and that we go ahead at the same pace as the rest of the country. There should not be a difference in how Parliament is behaving from the advice that is being given to our constituents. That is important; we should not seek to be a special case for ourselves. After the Commission meeting yesterday, I went into the Division Lobby with the expert who had presented to us from Public Health England, and his view, which I am allowed to share with the House, is that the Division Lobby is not a high risk and the only step he would recommend is that we open the windows, because a flow of air would be beneficial. On the basis that the Division Lobby is not high-risk, making major changes to the way we operate would not be the right response, but we wait upon the medical and scientific advice being given to us by the Government and if that changes, we will of course consider whether any procedural changes need to be made. Currently, that is not the case. On those who self-isolate, it will be better to use the pairing system than to try to introduce other measures, partly so that people who are self-isolating or who have coronavirus may maintain patient confidentiality. Some people who may be affected may not want everybody to know, and if we introduce novel methods, that confidentiality may be harder to maintain.

I come to the hon. Gentleman’s point about the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. He was right to say that it would be wrong if he thought that I had implied that the Scottish National party Members had talked out the establishment of the Committee. I made it clear that I thought that they had talked it out. There is no question of my implying it; that was exactly what they did. They talked out the establishment of the Scottish Affairs Committee and the Government are now considering the way forward, including of course the amendments they have tabled. Deliberation will be given to these important matters.

[Mr Speaker]

May I suggest that we run these questions until about quarter-past?

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will doubtless be aware, as will the Whips, you, Mr Speaker, and the Deputy Speakers, that, along with many longer-serving Members, the 2019 intake, from across the House, are having incredible problems with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. Surely it is time for reform? This is groundhog day, and, 10 years on, what does IPSA cost the taxpayer each year compared with what the Fees Office cost to do the same tasks pre-2008-09?

Business of the House

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Could I just say that I am expecting to run business questions until 11.15 am?

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) on violent crime, last year, in the London Borough of Harrow, the number of notifiable offences rose to 17,329, up from 14,897 the year before. Meanwhile, our do-nothing Mayor spends his money, which he is given by the Government, on public relations and spin doctors. He has been given £5 billion to build 116,000 new homes across the capital, and has failed to do that, and yesterday a third of tube trains were running late because of faulty trains. Could we have a debate on the failures of this do-nothing Mayor?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is a deeply troubling matter that the Union Jack should be flying upside down. [Hon. Members: “Union flag.”] Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. The pedants are wrong. It is the Union Jack, and it has been referred to as such for many centuries. There is a pedantic but erroneous view that it should be called the Union flag, and it is held by people who are more pedantic than they are wise.

I am sorry that this has happened, and I am glad it has been brought to the attention of the House authorities. I imagine that, as we speak, somebody is going to correct this. [Interruption.] I see that the Clerk of the House of Commons is taking action immediately. Things sometimes happen swiftly, and I assure my hon. Friend that Members of Parliament are not in distress.

[Mr Speaker]

Help is on its way.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

I am sure the whole House will join me in expressing our deepest condolences to the family and friends of Private Joseph Berry, a 21-year-old soldier who sadly lost his life while deployed on operations in Kabul serving with the second battalion of the Parachute Regiment. This tragedy coincides with the announcement that a peace deal has been reached by the US Government and the Taliban. There are many concerns about the agreement, not least the degree to which the Afghan Government have or have not been involved. Given the commitment our country has made to Afghanistan and the lives that have been lost, does the Leader of the House think we need a debate on the political situation in Afghanistan so that hon. and right hon. Members are afforded the opportunity to discuss these important matters?

Business of the House

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his gracious welcome of my continuing presence. I am sure that if I am suddenly called away, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), will be more than able to take over for the rest of the session.

The Government are bubbling over with brilliant ideas; I have never known a Government with more ideas coming through. Chairing the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee, I see these fantastic ideas. Parliamentary draftsmen are drafting away at the speed of light to prepare an exciting outpouring of Bills, which were announced in the Queen’s Speech and which will be coming through. To say that what we are offering up after the recess is “thin” is absurd. We are having a fundamental Environment Bill, which will legislate for the future of our environment and be a world-leading Bill. We also have the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill, which will ensure that we are at the forefront of medical technology. Those are two fundamentally important Bills. If necessary, we will also be dealing with the remaining parts relating to a terrorism Bill safeguarding the nation. Some Members really are hard to please! We then put in an Opposition day, and for the Opposition to complain about Opposition days is like turkeys complaining that Christmas has been cancelled—it seems to me to be an eccentricity. As regards the claim of right, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I have given several times before.

[Mr Speaker]

Let me help the House by saying that I am expecting to run business questions for 45 minutes or thereabouts.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on pension funds, particularly those in the local government sector? Evidence has emerged this week that in London there is a £17.98 billion deficit between the assets and the liabilities. Clearly the concern is that this is unsustainable, right across the piece. This ranges from Bromley Council having a £59.1 million deficit to Brent Council having an eye-watering £925.7 million deficit. Clearly there is a problem, and we should have a debate in Government time to expose this scandal and make sure that our hard-working public sector employees have their pensions protected.

Business of the House

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I am aiming to run this until around quarter to 12, so it would therefore be helpful if we could have briefer questions and answers.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The Leader of the House said that he was very much in favour of scrutiny, as I am sure he is. Standing Orders require us to have 13 days for private Members’ Bills in a Session, but when a Session is more than a year, as this one is going to be, the Government have usually provided additional days. Could we have a statement on when these Bills are going to be debated?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think we may be getting into the London mayoral elections in that question, and not unreasonably so. It is quite right that all levels of government, local as well as national, are held to account via this Parliament. I am sure that the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee has heard my hon. Friend’s request, as I think it is more suitable to Back-Bench business time than to Government time.

[Mr Speaker]

Speaking of which, I call Ian Mearns.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House is very kind, and I am very grateful to the House for re-electing me unopposed as Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, but I am currently a Chair without a Committee, and that does have implications for the business of the House. The Leader of the House has announced a general debate, subject to be announced, on Thursday 27 February. If we had been able to get the Committee up and running, had the Government party got its nominations together in a bit more of a timely fashion, we could be dealing with things like the applications for estimates day debates, which it now seems might not happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I absolutely hear and understand what the hon. Lady says. Her last point—that witnesses should not be re-traumatised—is right and fundamental. Victims ought to be at the heart of our justice system and protected. I am very limited as to what I can say about individual judges. If I may give her a steer, it is perfectly legitimate for this House to debate the behaviour and conduct of judges according to a specific motion, but not, unfortunately, to do so in the back and forth of questions.

[Mr Speaker]

We should not name somebody in the House in asking for that debate, but a substantive motion may be a way forward, which I am sure is what the hon. Lady was hoping for.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

Can we have a debate on the merits of cadets and the University Officers’ Training Corps? I read with dismay that Cambridge University students’ union has banned the officers’ training corps from operating in the freshers’ fair. I declare an interest: I was the proud president of my students’ union at the academically superior Loughborough University. That idea was quickly kicked into touch when it was suggested. Does my right hon. Friend agree that officers’ training corps represent an important symbiotic bond between our civilian and military communities and provide a good education on what our proud armed forces do?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The House has always taken the safety and wellbeing of children very seriously, and obviously the Government do as well. Extra funds are being made available: £410 million is being invested this year and next in social care, including social care for children, along with £84 million over five years to enable more children to stay at home safely. When issues involving child safety arise, it is the responsibility of the House and the Government to look into them carefully, and to see what can be done to ensure that children are safe and proper measures are in place. The Government are certainly trying to do that, but this is one of those areas in which one can never do enough, and we must carry on doing more.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. You almost cut me out there, you know.

The Leader of the House and the Government are well aware of the issue of invasive alien plants, animals and birds, such as mink, grey squirrels and signal crayfish, and of the problems caused by ash dieback and moth caterpillars. It is time to put the balance back into nature. There are now more parakeets than owls and kingfishers in Great Britain. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on this matter?

Business of the House

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank the Leader of the House for giving the business for the coming two weeks and for the second Opposition day.

I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when the shadow Secretary of State for International Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), mentioned that the Government might be acting illegally by including Western Sahara in their agreement with Morocco. Under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, that agreement will be ratified automatically in 21 days’ time, giving a time limit of 11 February. Could the Leader of the House find Government time—not on an Opposition day—to debate the treaty?

Will the Leader of the House update the House on possible machinery of government changes? We have heard that some Departments may be merged with or immersed in others. I do not know whether it is just another missive from the self-defined “weirdos and misfits” at No. 10, but could he give us some clarity? I assume that Select Committees will continue to parallel Government Departments, but we need some clarity, especially regarding 31 January.

Just as the other place started to debate the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill, the Government threatened to send it to York—I think they might actually have meant Coventry, but that would have been too obvious—but the Opposition accepted the Lords amendments. The noble Lord Dubs of Battersea, who came here on a Kindertransport and who grew up and made an important contribution, wants to secure the same future for vulnerable children today. Like him, we know that children who have family here can make that contribution, so will the Leader of the House explain why, despite important Government initiatives that protect vulnerable children, such as those on human trafficking, they are leaving those children exposed to violence, overcrowding and danger in camps? The Government are facing two ways: laying a policy before Parliament is not the same as an automatic right. I ask the Government to think again. We are a compassionate country.

Yesterday the Prime Minister said that the Oakervee report will be published in due course. HS2 is about capacity, connectivity and therefore productivity. The Oakervee report has already been leaked, so when will the Government have a debate in their time? Could it be sooner rather than later? Hon. Members want to table amendments and express their views about which part of HS2 needs to be done first.

The Prime Minister banned everyone bar the Chancellor from going to Davos, but even the Chancellor is not clear about Government policy. He said that the Government’s first priority was to get a trade deal with the EU, despite already having started work on an agreement with the United States—so which is it? The Chancellor also said that

“Britain is better off in”,

and that the single market is a

“a great invention, one that even Lady Thatcher campaigned enthusiastically to create…with no barriers, no tariffs and no local legislation to worry about.”

Now he has said that there will be no alignment. The Food and Drink Federation has said that this sounds like the “death knell” for frictionless trade and that the industry’s margins are very tight, so which is it—frictionless or not?

The Government have signed up to the Paris agreement, so perhaps we could have a debate on how to negotiate with the Government of the United States, who have not signed up to it. Would the Leader of the House schedule a debate or a statement so that we can get some clarity on that?

We have heard that the Prime Minister will be meeting Richard Ratcliffe and other families. The Leader of the House will be aware that the British-Australian hostage Kylie Moore-Gilbert has been asked to be a spy by the Iranian Government in return for her release. She is in the same prison as Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anousheh Ashouri, among others. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Prime Minister will be meeting those families, and that he will be leaving the negotiations to the diplomatic service? We want these innocent people released as soon as possible.

On a happier note, 20 January was the 755th anniversary of the de Montfort Parliament, where representatives of towns and shires got together here to discuss matters of national importance. We first sat in 1265, and hopefully will continue to sit and will not be abolished.

Sadly, we lost Terry Jones. For some of us, he provided the soundtrack to our lives in those wonderful “Monty Python’s Flying Circus” sketches, some of which I used to repeat in the playground. It was one of those great programmes that the BBC does so well, and we hope it will have the freedom to produce such programmes again. Terry Jones may have had a message for both sides of this House. For the Government, “He’s not the messiah. He’s a very naughty boy!” And for the Opposition, “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”.

[Mr Speaker]

He’s not a naughty boy now—Leader of the House.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the right hon. Lady for that last point; I think we should all look on the bright side of life. It is a positive thing to do and good for British politics.

The right hon. Lady mentions having a debate under CRAG on the Western Sahara. The Government will always listen to representations in relation to CRAG. The question is whether it is a suitable use of time. If the Opposition want to make a more formal representation, it will be listened to. However, Opposition days are coming thick and fast, and any such issues could be brought forward under those circumstances.

On machinery of government changes, the tradition of this House is that Select Committees follow what ministries there are, and I imagine that the House would want to follow that precedent, but it is ultimately a matter for the House. The right hon. Lady also mentioned the stories about their lordships going to York and what fun that might be for them. It occurs to me that when Royal Ascot moved to York, their lordships found it great fun to go up to York. If they could do it for pleasure, I am sure they might have a jolly time going there for business as well.

More seriously, the right hon. Lady mentions the amendment of the noble Lord Dubs. Lord Dubs is one of the most respected figures in British politics, and the campaign that he has continued to wage for vulnerable children is admired across the House and the country. I would just point out that the reason for not accepting the amendment is that it is not the right place for it. Government policy to look after vulnerable children from overseas remains absolutely in place. Some 41,000 children have come into this country since 2010, and 18,000 Syrian refugees—not necessarily children—have already come here, of the 20,000 that the Government promised. The Government are committed to protecting vulnerable children. This is really important. There is no change in policy; it is simply that the Bill was not the right place for it.

The right hon. Lady asks for a debate on HS2. I think we have to wait for the report to come out. I know we are getting leaks and titbits and excitement in the newspapers, but the House of Commons needs to debate once the facts and the papers are brought together rather than doing so prematurely.

On Davos, I am not sure whether the right hon. Lady wished to be there rather than here, if it is still continuing, but the Chancellor was indeed there. British people voted to leave the European Union. My right hon Friend the Chancellor the Exchequer is a democrat; he recognises the result. To hold people to lines they used when supporting remaining in the European Union before the referendum fails to recognise that democratic politicians tend to accept the results of referendums—certainly on the Government Benches. Our relationship with the US is one of our most important relationships, and therefore what agreements the US has signed up to, or not, does not change the importance of that relationship.

I can confirm that there is a plan for the Prime Minister to meet Mr Ratcliffe. I reiterate that I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for raising this every week. The behaviour of the Iranian Government is unforgivable, and we need to keep on pressing them to release people who are improperly held.

I am absolutely delighted that the right hon. Lady referred to the anniversary of 1265. It was, of course, a continuation of, not the creation of, Parliament. Prior to those times, the representatives of the shires came—people like me representing their counties—and from 1265, in our generosity, we allowed people from the boroughs to come in too, and so borough Members came in and the towns received their proper representation.

While we continue to look on the bright side of life, I think that answers all the questions for the time being.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

There are 35 Members wishing to speak. I want to get everybody in, but some may miss out if we do not shorten the questions. Let’s help each other.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

Rutland and Melton is home to not one, not two, but three geographically protected foods. Indeed, Somerset boasts its own Somerset cider brandy. Will my right hon. Friend be so kind as to agree to holding a debate in Government time on how the UK Government can best protect geographically protected foods post Brexit?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will be more aware than most that the situation on the perimeter of the Estate becomes extremely threatening at times, with abuse and threats to Members, and particularly women Members in my experience. Has he given any thought to the reintroduction of Sessional Orders?

[Mr Speaker]

They don’t work.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Speaker—it is such a pleasure to be heckled from the Chair. I thought that that had stopped with the last Parliament, but never mind.

I completely understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I happen to think that the situation is much, much better in this new Parliament than it was in the last. I have noticed that coming and going is much less shouty, which is a very good thing. I have an historic affection for Sessional Orders, but noises off are right that their legal enforceability is, regrettably, questionable. We have to think about whether that could be given a legislative basis, but possibly Government time does not allow for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Let me indeed congratulate the society on its 150th anniversary, and what a fantastic opportunity to celebrate it is. I wish all Scottish Members of the House, and other Members who participate, a very jolly Burns night—or a succession of jolly Burns nights, because it seems to be more than one particular night. I commend that vast quantities of haggis be eaten, because—you may be surprised to hear this, Mr Speaker—I have always thought it rather delicious.

[Mr Speaker]

I think so as well.

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

I recently had occasion to try to navigate the procedures of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and the House’s Human Resources Department to establish what should be done when a member of staff in a constituency office is unwell. It was very difficult and very complicated. That was not the fault of any one individual, but systems do not talk to each other and this system does not work very well. Apparently, there is no HR function relating to staff who work in constituencies, and there is a huge gap where they are not getting the support that they need.

Will the Leader of the House do all that he can to ensure that a good HR system is set up for members of staff who work in constituencies? There are several thousand of them. Will he also do all that he can, when looking into the cost of IPSA and what we spend our money on, to ensure that we have enough resources to protect people who are unwell and need our support?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is under a misapprehension—first of all that it is my Government. It is Her Majesty’s Government, and it is worth remembering that. I have not risen to such giddy heights. The fundamental point is that Government policy has not changed. Government policy is determined to look after child refugees. The point of not having this in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill is that the Bill is about leaving the European Union, not about child refugees. We are going to continue with the policy, and as I have said, 40,000 child refugees have come to this country since 2010. This is a matter of high priority for the Government, and the commitment is absolutely there, so I am sorry to say that the misapprehension remains.

[Mr Speaker]

Last but certainly never least, Judith Cummins.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will the Leader of the House, and indeed the whole House, join me in paying tribute to the rugby league legend Rob Burrow, who was recently diagnosed with motor neurone disease? The moving testimonial at Headingley showed the true spirit of the sport. Continuing on the rugby league theme, and following on from the prestigious award to our very own Mr Speaker by the all-party parliamentary rugby league group for his outstanding service to the game, may we have a debate in Government time on the opportunities that the 2021 world cup being held in England will bring?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I join the hon. Lady in her tribute? Motor neurone disease is a terrible and frightening disease, and coping with it, and coping with it in public, must be a great burden. The debate that she has suggested would, to my mind, be a wise suggestion for the Backbench Business Committee.

[Mr Speaker]

I am absolutely with Rob Burrow, and I am sure that the whole House would like to send him their best wishes and support.