Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Fiona Bruce

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

One sentence each, please. There are lots of Members trying to get in.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Will the Foreign Secretary consider the early-day motion tabled by 25 parliamentarians today calling on our Government to seek agreement with other Commonwealth countries to offer Hong Kong citizens second citizenship and a place of abode? Could this be applied for as an agenda item at the next Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting?

Hong Kong

Debate between John Bercow and Fiona Bruce

Monday 22nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Regarding Hong Kong citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms, the Chinese Government have warned the UK to

“know its place and stop interfering”

in what is a

“purely internal affair”.

Does my right hon. Friend disagree with that assessment, and will he make that clear to the Chinese Government? Will he also make it clear to them that it is perfectly in order for parliamentarians here in the UK to engage on this issue? May I put it on record in this place, Mr Speaker, that UK parliamentarians will not be warned off doing that, no matter what warnings we receive individually?

[Mr Speaker]

They certainly will not be. I am aware of such efforts, as the hon. Lady knows. Such efforts to silence Members of this House are both improper and extremely ill judged, and the sooner their authors realise that, so much the better.

Antisemitism in Modern Society

Debate between John Bercow and Fiona Bruce

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady has three more minutes, but I gently suggest that she is not obliged to use them.

[Fiona Bruce]

I will endeavour not to, Mr Speaker.

I was speaking about the importance of our individual humanity, which we should respect before any differences in intelligence, strength, religion, ability or political views. We should understand that each of us is individually and uniquely created, and that no insignificant person has ever or will ever be born. It is this vision of dignity in our shared humanity that was lost during the holocaust.

My favourite teacher at school—I know we all had one—was a German who had, with her father, helped Jewish children escape from the Nazis. They then had to escape themselves. She taught me German, but she also taught me something far more important than that. She taught me that no ideology should take precedence over respect for an individual as a human being and as a person.

I note that we subtly enable persecution every time we promote the use of language that often accompanies identity politics. Our political opponents are not necessarily wicked. They are certainly not scum. They are due a respectable ear and proper dialogue. Those who differ from us, whether in their political or religious views, or in their ethnicity, are first and foremost our brothers and sisters in humanity. I know that our Jewish brothers and sisters teach and promote these principles. As a society, let us stand alongside them and do all we can to enable them to flourish in their unique identity and beliefs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Fiona Bruce

Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am very saddened that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) is departing our midst. I know he has many pressing commitments and a very full diary, but if he stayed, he might get called. It would be very sad to lose the right hon. Gentleman’s pearls of wisdom.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

12. What steps the Government has taken to support aerospace businesses.

Abortion

Debate between John Bercow and Fiona Bruce

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Whatever Members’ differing views on abortion, if we respect devolution, we should vote against this motion. It proposes far-reaching changes in abortion law, not only for England and Wales but for Northern Ireland, where abortion has been respected as a devolved matter since 1921. Indeed, it would set a dangerous constitutional precedent of interference.

It is not only unconstitutional. It is untimely, at such a sensitive time in relations between the Westminster Government and the Northern Ireland Administration. It would completely undermine the substance and spirit of the Good Friday agreement, and it is unwanted. Northern Ireland is the most recent part of the UK to vote on abortion law, in 2016, and it voted by a clear majority to retain its law as it stands. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) quoted statistics in her support, but let us hear what the people of Northern Ireland said just last week when asked. Some 66% of women and 70% of 18 to 30-year-olds there said that Westminster should not dictate this change to them.

If, however, the Province in time decides to change its law, that is for them, not for us here as MPs in Westminster to decide. Colleagues will no doubt recall the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland saying in the House recently:

“The Government believe that the question of any future reform in Northern Ireland must be debated and decided by the people of Northern Ireland and their locally elected, and therefore accountable, politicians.”—[Official Report, 5 June 2018; Vol. 642, c. 220.]

That was specifically in respect of abortion. She has also said that

“it would not be right for the UK Government to undermine the devolution settlement by trying to force on the people of Northern Ireland something that we in Westminster think is right”.—[Official Report, 9 May 2018; Vol. 640, c. 661.]

Those sentiments were reinforced by the Prime Minister, when she said:

“Our focus is restoring a democratically accountable devolved government in Northern Ireland”.

In that clear respect, this motion is contrary to Government policy and should be voted down.

Can we in all conscience vote on the one hand tomorrow on a Bill to

“Facilitate the formation of an Executive in Northern Ireland”,

as its long title commences, respecting the authority of that Executive to make decisions on such issues as roads and infrastructure, and then on the other hand today seek to deny Northern Ireland that authority on a matter of such fundamental social significance as abortion? We cannot, and we must not.

Whatever the views of Members across the House on abortion, they should hear what a number of Northern Irish women who wrote to me said:

“Changing the law in Northern Ireland at this sensitive political moment on this sensitive political issue is bad for devolution everywhere.”

The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) has said from the Scottish National party Benches:

“The decisions of devolved Administrations are taken for reasons that people in those devolved nations understand from their point of view”—[Official Report, 5 June 2018; Vol. 642, c. 228.]

Or, as Ruth Davidson, who is in favour of changing the law on this issue, more bluntly puts it:

“as someone who operates in a devolved administration, I know how angry I would be if the House of Commons legislated on a domestic Scottish issue over the head of Holyrood”.

This motion is an ignoble endeavour to take advantage of a temporary Executive lacuna and to foist legislation unconstitutionally on to the people of Northern Ireland. In so doing, it would radically alter our own abortion laws here in England and Wales.

Although the Bill has yet to be published, let us look at what it would do. It seeks to permit a woman up to 24 weeks pregnant to obtain an abortion for any or no reason at all—abortion on demand up to five months of pregnancy. We already have some of the most extreme abortion laws in the world, but this would make them even more so. There is no public call or appetite for this whatsoever. Indeed, it is the opposite; there is clearly grave public concern. Apart from Brexit, I have had more cards from constituents asking me to vote against this ten-minute rule Bill than on any other issue in this Parliament. Only 21% of women in England and Wales want an extension to our abortion laws, and less than 2% of them are in favour of sex-selective abortion, which the Bill would legalise up to 24 weeks. It is no good the hon. Lady arguing, as she has, that clinicians’ regulations or practice could cover that issue. The fact is that if her proposals go through, sex-selective abortion will not be illegal in this country up to 24 weeks. Do we want to go the way of Canada, which is now described as

“a haven for parents who would terminate female foetuses in favour of having sons”?

Do we really want to support a Bill—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady must be heard. If she wishes to put the matter to the vote, which I believe she does and which is entirely proper, the House will then cast its judgment, but she must be heard with courtesy.

[Fiona Bruce]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do want to put the matter to a vote.

Do we really want to support a Bill that could remove the only opportunity that many women have, often at the most vulnerable stage, to speak confidentially and one-to-one with a doctor about their concerns on abortion and what their alternatives might be? If we really trust women and want them to make the most informed decision and give them the best support we can, surely we should not take away this important legal safeguard. The bottom line is that if there is an abusive relationship, and there is no legal requirement for a doctor’s involvement and no need for a reason to be given for an abortion, it is far more likely that a vulnerable woman will be pressurised into having an abortion by an abusive partner. This Bill does not improve protection for vulnerable women. It reduces it.

The hon. Lady talked about the legislation being out of date, but should we reinforce, as this motion proposes, an outdated 24-week time limit when babies are consistently surviving now at 22 weeks, and some even at 21 weeks and a few days? The Bill is out of step with scientific progress and public opinion. Some 70% of women want this time limit lowered.

In recent weeks, lobbyists supporting this motion, as the hon. Lady said, have said that the UN has called for this change. The UN has done no such thing. The lobbyists for this change cite a report by a minor UN sub-committee, which does not have any standing to rule on the UK’s legal obligations in this respect. As for the non-binding judgment of the Supreme Court, which has also been used to justify this motion, there is nothing in that judgment that could remotely be said to give rise to anything approaching a requirement for the Bill. As Lady Hale said there, we in this place do not have to act.

We should not act, particularly in relation to Northern Ireland, on this issue—not only because it would be unconstitutional, though that is enough, but because the complex ramifications of this proposal, which have clearly not been thought through, would result in contradictory and inconsistent results in different parts of the UK. Those are too detailed to be debated here, but Northern Ireland would in fact be left with a total legal void, with no law covering, for example, the place where an abortion could occur and no legal requirement for abortions to be restricted to legally approved hospitals or clinical settings—abortions for any reason or no reason in any place.

The permanent secretary of the Department of Health in Northern Ireland was asked this year,

“What is the situation if the 1861 Act was to be repealed in the UK?”

His answer was:

“This scenario would leave abortion unregulated in Northern Ireland.”

The best people could hope for there would be some guidance from the Department of Health. The hon. Lady places great reliance on regulators, but regulators do not have the standing of law, as we have recently seen in cases of regulatory failure by the Care Quality Commission. Regulation cannot replace legislation. Taking the responsibility for abortion out of the hands of elected representatives and putting it in the hands of unaccountable medical bodies would be a derogation of our responsibility as Members of Parliament.

To close, I repeat that as Members of Parliament, we must respect our devolution settlements, and particularly in this instance that of Northern Ireland. Whatever Members’ views on abortion, we must vote against this proposal. It is unconstitutional, legally incoherent, untimely and unwanted.

Question put (Standing Order No. 23).

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Fiona Bruce

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It might be thought to be a helpful prompt if I advise the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) that inter-faith dialogue can embrace the subject of the evils of modern-day slavery, in which I know she has an intense interest.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I was very pleased to hear my right hon. Friend’s response to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson). Does she agree that trafficking women into prostitution is a most heinous form of violence against women and girls and that, if we are to review the law on prostitution, a priority must be to improve exit strategies for these exploited women?

[Mr Speaker]

And one would assume that it was a matter that fell within the rubric of inter-faith dialogue.

Mental Health Services: Children and Young People

Debate between John Bercow and Fiona Bruce

Thursday 8th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, but I remind Members that there are business questions immediately after these exchanges, followed by an important statement by the Home Secretary. Thereafter, the debate on International Women’s Day is heavily subscribed, so there is a premium on brevity from Back and Front Benchers alike, and I want to move on, whether we have incorporated everybody or not, no later than 11 o’clock. Single-sentence questions are much to be preferred.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I commend the Government for promoting the Emotionally Healthy Schools project, which, in my constituency, is working well and engaging not just children who have challenges, but their families. Does the Minister agree that helping children with their mental health challenges needs to involve, wherever practical, their families, family relationships and inter-parental relationships, as recommended by the Early Intervention Foundation?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Fiona Bruce

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

No, I will not take points of order now. I am always interested in the views of the hon. Gentleman, but not now. We will hear from him in due course, and we look forward to that with interest and anticipation. Well done—the hon. Gentleman should stay in his seat, and we will hear from him in due course.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I commend the Prisons Minister for following up his predecessor’s strong support for Lord Farmer’s review. Will he meet me to discuss extending its reach to the welfare of prisoners’ children, especially at the point—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is very good of the Foreign Secretary to drop in on us—we are deeply grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. However, I think that the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) should be given a chance to reprise her question, because I have interrupted her. Blurt it out from start to finish.

[Fiona Bruce]

Will the Prisons Minister meet me to discuss the welfare of prisoner’ children, especially at the point of sentencing? There are 200,000 such children a year, and they often fall through the care system completely.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Fiona Bruce

Tuesday 6th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We might hear from the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) later, but I say to him in all friendly courtesy that while Kingswood no doubt has a great deal to be said for it, as does Congleton, both have one thing in common, and that is that they are a very long way from northern Lincolnshire.

Business of the House

Debate between John Bercow and Fiona Bruce

Thursday 7th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

They might momentarily have been forgotten. The hon. Gentleman has never been, and will never be, forgotten.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

May I thank the Leader of the House for taking time out of her busy day yesterday to attend the launch of “A Manifesto to Strengthen Families”, which is supported by 44 Back-Bench Conservative MPs? It contains 18 practical policy proposals, such as strengthening prisoners’ family ties and promoting greater support for veterans’ families and for fatherhood. Does she agree that this subject has long needed more consideration by Members of this House, and will she meet a small group of those 44 MPs to discuss how more parliamentary debate time can be provided for it?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Fiona Bruce

Monday 24th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am happy to take two further questions, if each of them consists of only one sentence.

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank the Secretary of State for his strong expression of concern regarding unfair leasehold titles, which affect my Congleton constituency; will he confirm that he is addressing this issue for those who have already bought, and, for the future buyer, will he look at imposing requirements on the right-to-buy conditions so that such properties can be bought only under freehold or fair leasehold terms?

Voluntary Sector: Faith Organisations

Debate between John Bercow and Fiona Bruce

Thursday 5th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that teachers are concerned about their professional reputations and even about their jobs.

Ofsted’s job is to inspect educational standards in schools, not to make ideological judgments about church youth groups or any other voluntary initiatives. Professor Julian Rivers told us in his evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the proposal could well be in breach of the European convention on human rights because even the registration—let alone the inspection—would restrict the free exercise of religion.

A joint statement made last month by several national organisations representing millions of Christians said of the proposals that

“the scope for vexatious complaints is considerable, especially in the current climate of aggressive secularism and religious illiteracy.”

That is something that I mentioned earlier. The statement went on:

“Whilst Christians wholeheartedly support reasonable measures to prevent terrorism and violent extremism, these proposals will lead to a loss of civil liberties and create a large bureaucracy that will divert resources away from restraining extremists who reject UK law. Such individuals will simply ignore or effortlessly circumvent the registration requirements. We urge the government to drop these proposals and develop a targeted, intelligence-led approach that will genuinely inhibit the activities of violent extremists.”

I ask the Minister to consider this and supply a response to these concerns, perhaps not in this debate but later.

I should like to give the House an example of an organisation that is concerned about the proposals. Christian Camping International UK provides in excess of 30,000 children and young people with more than 500 events across more than 250 venues. They are experts in this sector. My own boys have benefited from camping holidays run by faith groups. The organisation has listed a number of potential unintended consequences from the proposals. It says:

“Much of the activity referred to above is dependent on a large number of volunteers. Finding volunteers is a constant issue and the Government should be aware that increasing the level of bureaucracy involved in providing such events will only exacerbate the difficulty.”

The organisation points out that it is already regulated in a number of ways, including under charity laws and regulations and safeguarding regulations, and through the Disclosure and Barring Service. It says that

“there are no examples of such Christian ministries in the UK teaching extremism, nor encouraging young people to celebrate terrorism or become terrorists…The proposals have the potential both to overload the sector with more costs and red tape…which the Government seems to have radically underestimated”.

I ask the Minister to respond to that.

The Government have begun to roll back on some of the proposals put out in the consultation document. Earlier this year, the Minister for Schools said that one-off residential activities would not be included, and we have had an indication that Sunday schools would also not be included. While I welcome those intentions, I point out again to the Government that the proposals have severe issues that run far deeper than those few qualifications can address.

[Mr Speaker]

Has the hon. Lady concluded her speech?

[Fiona Bruce]

I am conscious that it is important not to take more than a fair amount of time. There is much more that I could say on the issue, but I believe that I have made the important points.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you. I was merely asking.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Fiona Bruce

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Forgive me colleagues, but what we need at Topical Questions is short inquiries, without preamble, if we are to make progress. Let us be led in this exercise by Fiona Bruce.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

T3. This is alcohol awareness week. In Scotland, the number of drink-driving offences dropped by 17% in the first three months after the introduction of a lower drink-driving limit. In the light of this encouraging evidence, is the Minister’s Department looking at the public health implications of reviewing the drink-driving limit in England and Wales as part of its alcohol review?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Fiona Bruce

Monday 16th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Tessa Munt. Not here.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

T8. Will Ministers give very serious consideration to a call-in request I have made relating to a planning application for 190 properties in Goostrey? It would generate detrimental interference to the radio telescopes and world-leading scientific work at Jodrell Bank, and is therefore a concern of national significance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Fiona Bruce

Thursday 12th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Kerry McCarthy. She is not here.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

9. What assessment she has made of the lessons that can be learned from the experiences of other countries in dealing with bovine tuberculosis.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology

Debate between John Bercow and Fiona Bruce

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce]

The answer has to be that we—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think Members thought that the hon. Lady had concluded her speech, but she has not. Let us have a courteous hearing for everybody. I call Fiona Bruce.

[Fiona Bruce]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Once we approve this procedure, where will it lead? The answer has to be that we stop here and say, “This is a red line in our country, as in every other country in the world, that we will not cross.” This is the place for that to be said. As MPs, we are accountable to the people of this country.

The Government’s own consultation in July 2014 received 1,857 responses, of which 1,152 were opposed to the introduction of these techniques. That has been confirmed by ComRes polling last weekend, which showed that more than twice as many people are against these proposals as are in favour—41% of respondents, compared with 21%. A third public survey, being conducted today on The Daily Telegraph website, shows that as of this morning 68% of the public oppose these techniques in principle. Do their concerns not deserve respect from those of us present here?

The truth is that the Government have not waited for the conclusion of trials, as they should have done, so that this House could make a fully informed decision, and that is wrong. Whether one ultimately approves or disapproves of these proposals, the right procedure on such a profound issue is for the elected representatives of the people of this country to have full information before being rushed into a decision, as we would be today if we voted for these proposals.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Fiona Bruce

Tuesday 21st October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have overrun, principally because of long questions and answers earlier, but I am keen to accommodate a couple more colleagues.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Mitochondrial technique was last tried on humans in 2003 by John Zhang, resulting, I understand, in two still births and an abortion. Last week, one of the members of an expert panel of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority said he had only just become aware of Zhang’s study. What action will Ministers take to ensure that this worrying study is properly examined before any steps are taken to bring this issue before the House?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Fiona Bruce

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has already had one go. His appetite ought to have been satisfied for now. He seems to be a hungry caterpillar, but he will have to wait. Never mind.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

15. What contribution the UK is making to international provision for displaced Syrians.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Fiona Bruce

Thursday 9th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, I call Fiona Bruce.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

10. What recent assessment the Commissioners have made of difficulties faced by Christians in celebrating Christmas in certain parts of the world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Fiona Bruce

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Mike Freer. He is definitely not here; perhaps he is stuck on London transport as well, who knows?

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

T7. Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me and the all-party group on North Korea in welcoming last week’s historic resolution by the UN Human Rights Council to establish a commission of inquiry to investigate the grave violations of human rights in North Korea? I thank our Government for their vital work on this subject, and I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to thank those many civil rights organisations, such as Christian Solidarity Worldwide, that have campaigned on this issue for many years.

Business of the House

Debate between John Bercow and Fiona Bruce

Thursday 21st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As usual, a very large number of hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I remind the House that a statement by the Foreign Secretary will follow and it might be of interest to the House to know that the Budget debate today is very heavily subscribed, with almost 40 Members seeking to contribute. If I am to accommodate the level of interest expressed in the business statement, brevity from Back and Front Benchers alike will be imperative. We can be led in that mission by Fiona Bruce.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

What is the reaction of the Leader of the House to the proposals to change the chapel of St Mary Undercroft in this place to a multi-faith prayer room? There is already a multi-faith prayer room in Parliament and an Islamic prayer room in the Lords.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Fiona Bruce

Wednesday 30th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If Question Time is to be meaningful, questions and answers must be heard. We are discussing matters of momentous significance to the people concerned and it would show some respect if the House listened. Let us have a bit of order.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

T3. What is DFID doing to encourage funding applications from the small organisations and charities we all have in our constituencies which support schools, hospitals and other aid projects in the developing world, and which often provide excellent value for money?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Fiona Bruce

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think that the Secretary of State meant “reneged” rather than “welshed”.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

T4. Does the Minister agree that the National Audit Office report’s conclusion that supporting apprenticeships, such as through the excellent Beartown apprenticeship scheme in my constituency, which partners schools, local businesses, the chamber of commerce and Plus Dane, can generate a return of £18 for every £1 invested? Does that not confirm the Government’s wisdom of putting apprenticeships at the heart of vocational learning?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Fiona Bruce

Wednesday 14th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Far too many noisy private conversations are taking place in the Chamber. I want to hear Fiona Bruce.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

6. What assistance police forces in Scotland provided during the public disorder in England in August 2011; and if he will make a statement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Fiona Bruce

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Graham Evans is not here, so I call Fiona Bruce.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

T2. rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, but in the circumstances the Foreign Secretary should first give a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Fiona Bruce

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not wish to be unkind to new Ministers, but answers are, frankly, too long. They need to be shorter.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

3. What assessment he has made of the effects on voluntary organisations of the Government's regulatory and administrative requirements.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd): One of our priorities is to make it easier to run a voluntary organisation, so we are committed to clearing the thicket of bureaucracy that too often gets in the way of doing good and to setting up a joint task force with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to look at how we can reduce red tape for small organisations.